Author Topic: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings-Congrats Justice Kavanaugh  (Read 48729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #735 on: September 24, 2018, 05:13:58 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3699
  • Tommy Points: 617
Am I correct in assuming, then, that Ford did not come forward as the result of some sort of tipoff about Kavanaugh's forthcoming nomination? In other words, the timing really was coincidental?

Her initial communication (to the FBI and Representative Eshoo) was months ago but wanted anonymity.  What forced her to 'come out' publicly were leaks about her communication that were starting to tie her to it.   

The latter timing is probably not 'coincidental'.  I suspect the leaks that forced her hand were probably due to more aggressive members in some Demo's staff who wanted this out there, despite what Ford wanted.  But that's speculation on my part.

Yeah, I think you're right on that about the Dems role. Could have done more earlier, but strategically held back. Which is a huge mistake IMHO.

Well, I wouldn't call it "strategically held back".   She held back because she was terrified of exactly what has happened.   It's also hard to call it a mistake on her part when her fears proved correct.

At this point, it doesn't really matter how we got here.  All that matters now is doing a true best effort, in good faith to surmise what is true and relevant to the decision to put Kavanaugh in a seat on the nation's highest court.

Suspicions and conspiracy theories are ultimately irrelevant and red herrings.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #736 on: September 24, 2018, 05:25:08 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12686
  • Tommy Points: 88
Am I correct in assuming, then, that Ford did not come forward as the result of some sort of tipoff about Kavanaugh's forthcoming nomination? In other words, the timing really was coincidental?

Her initial communication (to the FBI and Representative Eshoo) was months ago but wanted anonymity.  What forced her to 'come out' publicly were leaks about her communication that were starting to tie her to it.   

The latter timing is probably not 'coincidental'.  I suspect the leaks that forced her hand were probably due to more aggressive members in some Demo's staff who wanted this out there, despite what Ford wanted.  But that's speculation on my part.

Yeah, I think you're right on that about the Dems role. Could have done more earlier, but strategically held back. Which is a huge mistake IMHO.

Well, I wouldn't call it "strategically held back".   She held back because she was terrified of exactly what has happened.   It's also hard to call it a mistake on her part when her fears proved correct.

At this point, it doesn't really matter how we got here.  All that matters now is doing a true best effort, in good faith to surmise what is true and relevant to the decision to put Kavanaugh in a seat on the nation's highest court.

Suspicions and conspiracy theories are ultimately irrelevant and red herrings.

I agree to a point.

I agree that we want to put in a good faith, best effort attempt to put in the best possible person into the SC.

If that means vetting the person for a few more weeks or a few more months, so be it. You want to get this right, when you are talking about a lifetime appointment.

On the other hand, I can understand the Rs fear. They realize there is a good chance that they will lose the House, and a small but not outlandish chance they lose the Senate. So, they are afraid they will lose their chance to put a conservative on the SC. In other words, they are afraid that the Dems will say to them "elections matter"

All that said, it shouldn't be all that political. In a vacuum, the appointment to the SC should be apolitical.

I'd sort of like to see Trump call the Ds bluff and pull BKs nomination and say, okay, let's go with Merrick Garland.

He's someone I'm fine with, but you know that a bunch of Dems would want to let that twist in the wind until after the election in the hopes they could get someone liberal.

(Note, most conservatives have said at one time or another they would be fine with Garland, so Im assuming there would be enough R support).

Celtics fan for life.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #737 on: September 24, 2018, 05:47:30 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12686
  • Tommy Points: 88
This is apparently Dr. Fords letter to Grassley ET al. 


https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1044308581494001664?s=21


One good point she makes: sheís been off media the entire time. She sure doesnít look like someone trying to make a buck off of the ensuing circus (Ahem Avenatti, I might be talking about you).
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #738 on: September 24, 2018, 07:04:09 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20766
  • Tommy Points: 985
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #739 on: September 24, 2018, 07:10:59 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37463
  • Tommy Points: -27482
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. Itís a bit odd to not get first names.   

Whatís more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders ó one male, one female ó into a story about four male attackers.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 07:51:24 PM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #740 on: September 24, 2018, 07:33:59 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14058
  • Tommy Points: 1550
Quote
B. When people keep quiet about an assault for a long time, it's usually by suppressing it - it still comes back to them and affects them, but day-to-day you go on without much direct thought about it. It's in your past.

What credentials are you basing this on are you a trained social worker, counselor, MD or psychologist?  I am curious or just a guy looking up stuff on the internet...

I'm a psychologist, and while I don't specialize in or work with trauma/abuse victims most of my colleagues from my current job and several from my educational past do.

But you don't need a degree to find this stuff; there are tons of scholarly works, public audience-oriented books + articles, and personal testimonials widely, easily available for anyone who cares to look. This is basically an aggregation of what you'll see if you look into the experiences of people who've been there.


Former clinical social worker here with 40 years experience (past 20 as an education/behavioral consultant).  TP to Fairweather for a great explanation of the psychological dynamic that often occurs with trauma.  Like Fairweather I don't/didn't specialize in trauma but it's difficult to be in this field and not come across trauma-related issues. Some of my close colleagues through the years have focused on the phenomena of repressed or suppressed thoughts/feelings associated with trauma, and the brain's capacity to store emotional memories -- often without language connection.  This relates much to what PTSD sufferers deal with -- sometimes overwhelming emotion that they can name or place in terms of source -- other times with raw emotion but no capacity in the present to connect why the feelings are occurring.  The emergence of Kavanaugh as a public figure absolutely may have triggered a well of emotion for Ford -- and perhaps the resulting need to speak about it; to her therapist, husband and then eventually to communicate to those in government.

All the above is by no means "proof" that the events she recounts actually occurred....  Just means that it is plausible that the delay in her revelation is not the nefarious result of a liberal conspiracy.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #741 on: September 24, 2018, 08:31:21 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16943
  • Tommy Points: 1117
Repression is part of psychoanalysis school of Psychology.  It came from Freud.  Much of his theories are questioned sometimes today.   But his defense mechanisms of which repression is one are still taught today and the whole thing provides a useful network of reference.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #742 on: September 24, 2018, 08:54:06 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4312
  • Tommy Points: 359
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. Itís a bit odd to not get first names.   

Whatís more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders ó one male, one female ó into a story about four male attackers.

Once all comes out, nothing is going to be certain but everyone will have to come to some conclusion based on what is said.  Roy H., are you saying that based what we all know at this point, that you think this woman is making this up or is just altogether mistaken?  To hold this position, means you believe Kavanaugh completely.

This is not a criminal trial (and isn't really a civil trial either) but only in a criminal trial is "beyond a shadow of doubt" a requirement.  If that was the measure, then there probably is a shadow of doubt and Kavanaugh would not go to jail.  But in a civil case, it is a preponderance of the evidence.  Nothing is certain and doesn't need to be, but based on what I have heard, I do not believe Ford is making anything up or mistaken about who tried to get her out of her bathing suite.  She may not remember the address or even the day of the week (if it was the summer for example, it could be any day).

I am really surprised that anyone could listen to these two stories and come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is the victim.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #743 on: September 24, 2018, 09:04:52 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20766
  • Tommy Points: 985
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. Itís a bit odd to not get first names.   

Whatís more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders ó one male, one female ó into a story about four male attackers.
The name of the attackers makes no difference from a therapist standpoint, thus there is no reason to put a name in the notes.  Similarly, whether there were 4 people at the party or 4 people in the room is easily something a therapist could get wrong (which Dr. Ford has consistently stated).

At the end of the day it is basically impossible that Dr. Ford made up the series of events in 2012 to potentially stop Kavanaugh from getting on the Supreme Court years later.  It just isn't logical.  Your normally a pretty logical person, your positions on this really don't make any sense. 

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #744 on: September 24, 2018, 09:08:09 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11143
  • Tommy Points: 1311
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. Itís a bit odd to not get first names.   

Whatís more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders ó one male, one female ó into a story about four male attackers.

Once all comes out, nothing is going to be certain but everyone will have to come to some conclusion based on what is said.  Roy H., are you saying that based what we all know at this point, that you think this woman is making this up or is just altogether mistaken?  To hold this position, means you believe Kavanaugh completely.

This is not a criminal trial (and isn't really a civil trial either) but only in a criminal trial is "beyond a shadow of doubt" a requirement.  If that was the measure, then there probably is a shadow of doubt and Kavanaugh would not go to jail.  But in a civil case, it is a preponderance of the evidence.  Nothing is certain and doesn't need to be, but based on what I have heard, I do not believe Ford is making anything up or mistaken about who tried to get her out of her bathing suite.  She may not remember the address or even the day of the week (if it was the summer for example, it could be any day).

I am really surprised that anyone could listen to these two stories and come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is the victim.

I'll repeat: this line of thinking is unjust and unethical.  It cannot, and should not, be tolerated.  What you 'believe' is irrelevant.  Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

If there is no physical evidence nor witness testimony, passing judgment on someone based on what you believe is the truth is wrong, dangerous, and unacceptable.  Testimony of the accuser is not evidence of anything, period.  This is the exact line of thinking that allowed things like the Salem witch trials, and the Red Scare to happen.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #745 on: September 24, 2018, 09:26:17 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. Itís a bit odd to not get first names.   

Whatís more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders ó one male, one female ó into a story about four male attackers.

Once all comes out, nothing is going to be certain but everyone will have to come to some conclusion based on what is said.  Roy H., are you saying that based what we all know at this point, that you think this woman is making this up or is just altogether mistaken?  To hold this position, means you believe Kavanaugh completely.

This is not a criminal trial (and isn't really a civil trial either) but only in a criminal trial is "beyond a shadow of doubt" a requirement.  If that was the measure, then there probably is a shadow of doubt and Kavanaugh would not go to jail.  But in a civil case, it is a preponderance of the evidence.  Nothing is certain and doesn't need to be, but based on what I have heard, I do not believe Ford is making anything up or mistaken about who tried to get her out of her bathing suite.  She may not remember the address or even the day of the week (if it was the summer for example, it could be any day).

I am really surprised that anyone could listen to these two stories and come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is the victim.

I'll repeat: this line of thinking is unjust and unethical.  It cannot, and should not, be tolerated.  What you 'believe' is irrelevant.  Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

If there is no physical evidence nor witness testimony, passing judgment on someone based on what you believe is the truth is wrong, dangerous, and unacceptable.  Testimony of the accuser is not evidence of anything, period.  This is the exact line of thinking that allowed things like the Salem witch trials, and the Red Scare to happen.
At least in the Red Scare there really were commies in Hollywood

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #746 on: September 24, 2018, 09:36:37 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20766
  • Tommy Points: 985
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. Itís a bit odd to not get first names.   

Whatís more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders ó one male, one female ó into a story about four male attackers.

Once all comes out, nothing is going to be certain but everyone will have to come to some conclusion based on what is said.  Roy H., are you saying that based what we all know at this point, that you think this woman is making this up or is just altogether mistaken?  To hold this position, means you believe Kavanaugh completely.

This is not a criminal trial (and isn't really a civil trial either) but only in a criminal trial is "beyond a shadow of doubt" a requirement.  If that was the measure, then there probably is a shadow of doubt and Kavanaugh would not go to jail.  But in a civil case, it is a preponderance of the evidence.  Nothing is certain and doesn't need to be, but based on what I have heard, I do not believe Ford is making anything up or mistaken about who tried to get her out of her bathing suite.  She may not remember the address or even the day of the week (if it was the summer for example, it could be any day).

I am really surprised that anyone could listen to these two stories and come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is the victim.

I'll repeat: this line of thinking is unjust and unethical.  It cannot, and should not, be tolerated.  What you 'believe' is irrelevant.  Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

If there is no physical evidence nor witness testimony, passing judgment on someone based on what you believe is the truth is wrong, dangerous, and unacceptable.  Testimony of the accuser is not evidence of anything, period.  This is the exact line of thinking that allowed things like the Salem witch trials, and the Red Scare to happen.
Um witness testimony is absolutely evidence.  In fact in Court that is often the only evidence of events. 

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #747 on: September 24, 2018, 09:37:33 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. Itís a bit odd to not get first names.   

Whatís more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders ó one male, one female ó into a story about four male attackers.

Once all comes out, nothing is going to be certain but everyone will have to come to some conclusion based on what is said.  Roy H., are you saying that based what we all know at this point, that you think this woman is making this up or is just altogether mistaken?  To hold this position, means you believe Kavanaugh completely.

This is not a criminal trial (and isn't really a civil trial either) but only in a criminal trial is "beyond a shadow of doubt" a requirement.  If that was the measure, then there probably is a shadow of doubt and Kavanaugh would not go to jail.  But in a civil case, it is a preponderance of the evidence.  Nothing is certain and doesn't need to be, but based on what I have heard, I do not believe Ford is making anything up or mistaken about who tried to get her out of her bathing suite.  She may not remember the address or even the day of the week (if it was the summer for example, it could be any day).

I am really surprised that anyone could listen to these two stories and come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is the victim.

I'll repeat: this line of thinking is unjust and unethical.  It cannot, and should not, be tolerated.  What you 'believe' is irrelevant.  Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

If there is no physical evidence nor witness testimony, passing judgment on someone based on what you believe is the truth is wrong, dangerous, and unacceptable.  Testimony of the accuser is not evidence of anything, period.  This is the exact line of thinking that allowed things like the Salem witch trials, and the Red Scare to happen.
Um witness testimony is absolutely evidence.  In fact in Court that is often the only evidence of events.
Right, but all the witnesses in this case say it never happened or that they weren't there.

Granted we don't even know "there" is because the accuser doesn't know either, nor how they got there, no how they got back, nor when it was.

Maybe it happened in Narnia or some such timeless bizarre place. Like the Matrix or the Void or something

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #748 on: September 24, 2018, 10:04:12 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11143
  • Tommy Points: 1311
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. Itís a bit odd to not get first names.   

Whatís more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders ó one male, one female ó into a story about four male attackers.

Once all comes out, nothing is going to be certain but everyone will have to come to some conclusion based on what is said.  Roy H., are you saying that based what we all know at this point, that you think this woman is making this up or is just altogether mistaken?  To hold this position, means you believe Kavanaugh completely.

This is not a criminal trial (and isn't really a civil trial either) but only in a criminal trial is "beyond a shadow of doubt" a requirement.  If that was the measure, then there probably is a shadow of doubt and Kavanaugh would not go to jail.  But in a civil case, it is a preponderance of the evidence.  Nothing is certain and doesn't need to be, but based on what I have heard, I do not believe Ford is making anything up or mistaken about who tried to get her out of her bathing suite.  She may not remember the address or even the day of the week (if it was the summer for example, it could be any day).

I am really surprised that anyone could listen to these two stories and come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is the victim.

I'll repeat: this line of thinking is unjust and unethical.  It cannot, and should not, be tolerated.  What you 'believe' is irrelevant.  Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

If there is no physical evidence nor witness testimony, passing judgment on someone based on what you believe is the truth is wrong, dangerous, and unacceptable.  Testimony of the accuser is not evidence of anything, period.  This is the exact line of thinking that allowed things like the Salem witch trials, and the Red Scare to happen.
Um witness testimony is absolutely evidence.  In fact in Court that is often the only evidence of events. 

I very clearly said witness testimony can be considered evidence.  Not always, but often times, yes. Ideally, this is backed up by incontrovertible facts (i.e physical evidence).

I realize that many in society have had it in grained in them to believe certain things to be tantamount to evidence, but that is merely a manifestation of genrations of misguided thought.  I've spent years reflecting and considering such matters.  It's really the only logical conclusion when one removes emotion from their thinking. If one does not know something to be true, as proven by incontrovertible facts, passing judgment based on a mere belief is unjust. 

The idea that there must be judgment passed and that it is necessary for healing on the part of the victim is misguided.  Being compassionate to those that have been, or feel, victimized, whether real or imagined, and resisting the urge to pass judgment when there is no irrefutable proof of such accusations are not mutually exclusive.  When people can learn to let go of that which has happened in the past, and can move past it, true healing can occur.  The single largest impediment to this is the idea that someone must pay.

It's imperative for one to free themselves of the desire to punish, or seek retribution, against others.  It's a manifestation of hatred from within one's heart, and is toxic to the soul.  Justice should involve nothing more than protecting society from those that wish to do harm, while allowing those that can be rehabilitated the opportunity to do so.

We should seek the truth. We should be slow to draw conclusions.  We should focus on facts. And we should reserve our judgment for only when there are proven facts and truths.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #749 on: September 24, 2018, 10:09:03 PM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1350
  • Tommy Points: 270
There is so much evidence that Brett Kavanagh was a heavy drinker in high school and at least early in his college years. That he associated with people like Mark Judge and other men who drank too much and considered it sport to hurt others. The effort he is going to now to paint himself a choirboy is going to backfire; too many people know the truth.

https://twitter.com/PeterKauffmann/status/1044384650767020033?s=20


 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required