Author Topic: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings-Congrats Justice Kavanaugh  (Read 48948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #780 on: September 25, 2018, 12:01:26 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37520
  • Tommy Points: -27476
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations.

If there is no proof of either accusation this is wholly false.


This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


It is not a criminal trial, no.  But denying Kavanaugh this appointment based on the accusations is still passing judgment just the same.  There should be no different standard.  Proof must be required.  Anything less is unjust.
So by your standard, none of the Catholic preists did anything wrong and none of the Weinstein accusers were telling the truth and most victims that came out with the #MeToo movement ever had anything done to them.

I think it's great to have proof but in 36 year old accusations one must take the proof given and extrapolate what is the most likely scenario.This isn't a court of law.

Well, I'm not 100% familiar with all of the details of the Weinstein accusations, nor do I know the details of every accusation ever made against any particular priest, so I cannot comment with any certainty there.

But, pretending for a second that there was never any proof provided substantiating the accusations, I wouldn't be saying none of things didn't happen.  I'd be saying I don't know that they did.  And if I don't know for certain that those things happened it is inherently unjust of me to pass judgment on those accused.  Judgment could come in the form of criminal justice, civil penalty, or simply harboring thoughts that the accused did what they were accused of.  The standard for proof must be the same regardless, it's the only just way such matters should be considered.

The idea that one side or the other has to be believed is one that does not stand up to logic and reason.  Sometimes there is just no answer.  It's obviously desirable to find the truth, and that is not a trivial matter, but if it cannot be found, simply relying on what you think is most likely true is not something that is just for anyone involved.

Look, I don't expect you or anyone else to change your mind today.  This wasn't something I always understood, it's something that came about after many long discussions, contemplation, and self reflection.  But all I'd ask that you consider my thoughts.
The standard for proof isn't the same.  In criminal justice, it is beyond a reasonable doubt.  In civil justice, it is preponderance of the evidence.  In ordinary life, it is based on judgment calls and risk.  If there is an unproven accusation that someone applying for a security clearance might be a security risk or that someone applying to be a teacher may have harmed a kid, it may not be just but the decision should be to err on the side of caution. 

The truth is clouded by people's perceptions and biases.  We could know all the facts and still have differences of opinion on the truth and what should be done.  To an inexperienced 15 year old girl, an occurrence may be perceived as a traumatic incident.  Whereas a drunk, skirt chasing 17 year old boy, may just perceive it as a failed attempt to get lucky. In this case, you're also dealing with differences in norms today versus 30+ years ago. [/b]

That 17 year old boy is a demented sociopath then, and I would want him nowhere near the Supreme Court.

Err...  I'm not sure that most people above age 50 who aren't dedicated feminists or partisans see it that way.  If the *exact* facts are accurate -- pushing somebody into a room, getting on top of them, attempting to quiet them from screaming -- maybe that makes somebody a demented sociopath, but if the facts are at all ambiguous, it very well could fall into the realm of typical social behavior in 1983. 
I can't speak for the social environment that YOU were raised in, but I personally, fundamentally reject this notion.   This is not at all acceptable social behavior, then or now.    Just because something was once common, does not mean it was ever really acceptable.

Perhaps not, but you can't judge social norms 35 years ago by today's standard.  Realism needs to be part of how we judge people.  It's like the morons who want to scrub the names of any Founding Father who ever owned a slave from our historical record, or paint them as bad people.

And, I can't speak to the social environment that YOU were raised in, either.  I don't expect I'd have enjoyed it much, though.


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

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #781 on: September 25, 2018, 12:05:17 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2506
  • Tommy Points: 644
Welp, one of Kavanaugh's defenders has jumped ship after she learned of an offensive yearbook reference to her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Interestingly, there is a reference to "boofing" in the yearbook page. Could be a kayaking maneuver.... or it could be the other thing. There are a lot of things in that yearbook page that are party-related, and likely lewd. "FFFFFFFourth of July" is another.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-fffffffourth-of-july/

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #782 on: September 25, 2018, 12:06:03 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3710
  • Tommy Points: 617
Quote
1) A named witness who was placed in the room with Kavanaugh and Ford will not be called to testify?
2) The therapist who Ford spoke to 6 years ago will not he allowed to testify?
3) The FBI agent who administered the polygraph to Ford will not he called to testify?
4) Witnesses who were present or remember contemporaneously hearing about the incident with Debbie Ramirez will not be asked to testify?

In terms of Due Process and rules that apply across a wide number of tribunals:

1.  Judge should be called to testify.  He indicates that he doesn't have relevant evidence, but that's an issue for the fact-finder to determine;

2.  Assuming that privilege is waived, this still isn't competent evidence in the court system.  It's hearsay.  There's an exception to the hearsay rule that allows statements to come in if they're an admission by a party, but only if that admission is *adverse* to them.  In other words, self-serving statements don't come in.  Now, Kavanaugh's counsel could have the therapist testify in terms of the accuracy of her note-taking, to point out the inconsistencies, to point out that he was never named and that the genders and actions of the persons present have changed over time, etc.  However, in all likelihood the issue of the therapist would be excluded entirely.  There's also a chance that the therapist could testify under a medical records exception, but she'd probably be required to turn over her notes to the fact-finder.  Here, that fact-finder is the Judiciary Committee.

3.  This would never be admitted in most tribunals.  Polygraphs are inherently unreliable, and admitting their results is inherently prejudicial.  They don't even measure truthfulness, but rather physiological responses.  In general, witnesses aren't allowed to offer an opinion on the truthfulness of a party, regardless of whether done with or without a polygraph.  For instance, a police officer can't testify "From my training and experience, the defendant was lying to me". 

Similarly, Kavanaugh wouldn't be allowed to ask how many polygraphs were taken, if there were any adverse results, etc.

4.  Witnesses who were present can and should testify.  People who heard about it only through hearsay shouldn't.

On (2) and (4): The content of hearsay is one thing.  But the event of hearsay can establish timelines and that can be relevant.  That requires questions to be of the form, "When did you first hear about X?" rather than, "What did they say to you about X?"

On (3): This is not a tribunal.  The Senate can bring in and consider whomever they wish.  And they can, of course, exclude whomever they wish.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #783 on: September 25, 2018, 12:09:44 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37520
  • Tommy Points: -27476
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Yes, but Senate hearings are not bound by due process rules.  And what is being challenged is Kavanaugh’s credibility, and also that of his accusers.  If Kavanaugh testifies that he never got black-out drunk or violent when drunk, witnesses who saw such behavior around the time of the accusations (high schools friends, college roommates), are absolutely relevant.

The ultimate question isn’t one of guilt, but whether Brett Kavanaugh should be a Supreme Court Justice.  And the question here is really whether he is trustworthy — the Supreme Court needs justices who above all people believe to be honest. 

I understand your concern, and I wish we were getting a more extensive hearing than what we're going to be getting.  Reasonable minds can disagree, and while I think most people who are advocating for delay are doing it for partisan reasons, there are sincere reasons not to rush this process as well.

But, I do think that *everybody* is entitled to Due Process if a tribunal is going to have any legitimacy.  I frankly don't think that Senate Judiciary hearings are in any way legitimate at this stage, but they could at least give the appearance of that.  But, maintaining Due Process and preserving the dignity and impartiality of the process should be everybody's goal. 

I feel that way if we're talking about an elementary school disciplinary hearing or a Supreme Court nomination or a murder trial.  Everybody deserves due process if they're an American citizen or on American soil, whether facing criminal liability or not.  It's just the only fair way to do things.


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

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #784 on: September 25, 2018, 12:14:41 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11145
  • Tommy Points: 1312
Quote
1) A named witness who was placed in the room with Kavanaugh and Ford will not be called to testify?
2) The therapist who Ford spoke to 6 years ago will not he allowed to testify?
3) The FBI agent who administered the polygraph to Ford will not he called to testify?
4) Witnesses who were present or remember contemporaneously hearing about the incident with Debbie Ramirez will not be asked to testify?

In terms of Due Process and rules that apply across a wide number of tribunals:

1.  Judge should be called to testify.  He indicates that he doesn't have relevant evidence, but that's an issue for the fact-finder to determine;

2.  Assuming that privilege is waived, this still isn't competent evidence in the court system.  It's hearsay.  There's an exception to the hearsay rule that allows statements to come in if they're an admission by a party, but only if that admission is *adverse* to them.  In other words, self-serving statements don't come in.  Now, Kavanaugh's counsel could have the therapist testify in terms of the accuracy of her note-taking, to point out the inconsistencies, to point out that he was never named and that the genders and actions of the persons present have changed over time, etc.  However, in all likelihood the issue of the therapist would be excluded entirely.

3.  This would never be admitted in most tribunals.  Polygraphs are inherently unreliable, and admitting their results is inherently prejudicial.  They don't even measure truthfulness, but rather physiological responses.  In general, witnesses aren't allowed to offer an opinion on the truthfulness of a party, regardless of whether done with or without a polygraph.  For instance, a police officer can't testify "From my training and experience, the defendant was lying to me". 

Similarly, Kavanaugh wouldn't be allowed to ask how many polygraphs were taken, if there were any adverse results, etc.

4.  Witnesses who were present can and should testify.  People who heard about it only through hearsay shouldn't.

Yes, but Senate hearings are not bound by due process rules.  And what is being challenged is Kavanaugh’s credibility, and also that of his accusers.  If Kavanaugh testifies that he never got black-out drunk or violent when drunk, witnesses who saw such behavior around the time of the accusations (high schools friends, college roommates), are absolutely relevant.

The ultimate question isn’t one of guilt, but whether Brett Kavanaugh should be a Supreme Court Justice.  And the question here is really whether he is trustworthy — the Supreme Court needs justices who above all people believe to be honest.  A limited hearing will continue to leave that open to question, and that is good for no one.

Personally I think they should withdraw his nomination and actually do a real job of vetting their next candidate before submitting a nomination.  But absent that, we need a hearing that unfortunately will be messy.  Kavanaugh’s proclivities were out there in the open (references in Judge’s book, his yearbook, pictures from the Yale newspaper) — it’s not surprising that allegations surfaced.  And it’s not that any nominee they could pick will have the same problem — Gorsuch went to the same high school at the same time, and no one said anything about him then or now, and he was at least as controversial of a nomination from a political perspective.

I agree that there is merit to hearing what everyone has to say. If Kavanaugh is caught in lies, yes, that would call into question his character. And it may prove true that he should not be a SCOTUS Justice. We don't necessarily need evidence that Kavanaugh did in fact commit sexual assault, as he is being accused of, to deny him the appointment if there is other evidence that calls into question his character. That can, and should, be completely separate from judgment passed on him in regards to the actual sexual assault allegations.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #785 on: September 25, 2018, 12:15:07 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37520
  • Tommy Points: -27476
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Welp, one of Kavanaugh's defenders has jumped ship after she learned of an offensive yearbook reference to her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Interestingly, there is a reference to "boofing" in the yearbook page. Could be a kayaking maneuver.... or it could be the other thing. There are a lot of things in that yearbook page that are party-related, and likely lewd. "FFFFFFFourth of July" is another.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-fffffffourth-of-july/

Is the urban dictionary accurate dating back to 35 years?  Kavanaugh added another "F" or four.

I do think the "Renate" reference is probably a sexual boast, which is conclusive proof that Kavanaugh was...  a teenager male who was interested in sex? 

I guess it's just the social environment I was raised in, but I don't find somebody to be unfit as a judge just because as a teenager they drank a lot and hooked up with girls.  So did I.  So did almost every guy I know.


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

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #786 on: September 25, 2018, 12:35:04 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19318
  • Tommy Points: 2161
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Why would you call a million witnesses in to testify in a hearing where the accuser has not made a complaint under oath, won't turn over evidence, all the witnesses contradict/don't validate her version, and there is a solid chance she won't show up because her story is incredibly flimsy and will be easily picked apart under scrutiny??

Because you're vetting a candidate for a lifelong appointment to one of the 3-4 highest, most powerful offices in the country. If Ford's story falls apart, can't be corroborated, seems insincere, that's a point in his favor, not against it. And he needs them.  In a criminal process, the defendant is not guilty by default, and there needs to be a compelling case to change that. In vetting a candidate for high office, it's the reverse - they're unfit by default and must show enough to change that. There's a lot of rhetorical effort on convincing people it's the opposite, that they're entitled by default and something has to "disqualify" or "keep them out", but ultimately the focus is on the office, and the candidate's gotta prove they're suitable for it.

That requires a lot of things, but one of them is that they need to clear up, as much as possible, any serious allegations of misconduct. That means refuting the allegations if possible, but if not the kinds of things you're expecting would suffice pretty well too. Either way it means as thorough an investigation as possible. Blowing off the allegation, deciding in advance it must be all mades up by the badpeoples, or doing a cursory sham investigation just makes the candidate unvetted and the process illegitimate.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #787 on: September 25, 2018, 12:36:14 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20792
  • Tommy Points: 985
Welp, one of Kavanaugh's defenders has jumped ship after she learned of an offensive yearbook reference to her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Interestingly, there is a reference to "boofing" in the yearbook page. Could be a kayaking maneuver.... or it could be the other thing. There are a lot of things in that yearbook page that are party-related, and likely lewd. "FFFFFFFourth of July" is another.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-fffffffourth-of-july/

Is the urban dictionary accurate dating back to 35 years?  Kavanaugh added another "F" or four.

I do think the "Renate" reference is probably a sexual boast, which is conclusive proof that Kavanaugh was...  a teenager male who was interested in sex? 

I guess it's just the social environment I was raised in, but I don't find somebody to be unfit as a judge just because as a teenager they drank a lot and hooked up with girls.  So did I.  So did almost every guy I know.
but he was a virgin, so why is boasting about sexual conquests when he had known?

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #788 on: September 25, 2018, 12:42:32 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37520
  • Tommy Points: -27476
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Welp, one of Kavanaugh's defenders has jumped ship after she learned of an offensive yearbook reference to her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Interestingly, there is a reference to "boofing" in the yearbook page. Could be a kayaking maneuver.... or it could be the other thing. There are a lot of things in that yearbook page that are party-related, and likely lewd. "FFFFFFFourth of July" is another.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-fffffffourth-of-july/

Is the urban dictionary accurate dating back to 35 years?  Kavanaugh added another "F" or four.

I do think the "Renate" reference is probably a sexual boast, which is conclusive proof that Kavanaugh was...  a teenager male who was interested in sex? 

I guess it's just the social environment I was raised in, but I don't find somebody to be unfit as a judge just because as a teenager they drank a lot and hooked up with girls.  So did I.  So did almost every guy I know.
but he was a virgin, so why is boasting about sexual conquests when he had known?

Eh.  Young guys lie about that all the time.  Maybe he lied about who he hooked up with.  My guess is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a fib or too in her high school days, too. 

I mean, I think it's ridiculously stupid, but if the Senate wants to cross-examine him about his roommate and who he may or may not have gotten to second base with, they certainly can do so.  Frankly, I don't care how much he drank or how many girls he had consensual sex with. 


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

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #789 on: September 25, 2018, 12:45:53 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19318
  • Tommy Points: 2161
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I do think the "Renate" reference is probably a sexual boast, which is conclusive proof that Kavanaugh was...  a teenager male who was interested in sex? 

I guess it's just the social environment I was raised in, but I don't find somebody to be unfit as a judge just because as a teenager they drank a lot and hooked up with girls.  So did I.  So did almost every guy I know.

If it was a (accurate) sexual boast, that is conclusive proof that he's lied, right now in the present, about that relationship and probably in his self-offered statement that he was a virgin.

That's the part that keeps getting glossed over - something less than criminal but unseemly from the past, or a minor criminal act like repeated underage drinking, could easily be excusable if the candidate's strong enough in other regards, but lying about it right now would be a current, ongoing, major character issue.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #790 on: September 25, 2018, 12:57:43 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37520
  • Tommy Points: -27476
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I do think the "Renate" reference is probably a sexual boast, which is conclusive proof that Kavanaugh was...  a teenager male who was interested in sex? 

I guess it's just the social environment I was raised in, but I don't find somebody to be unfit as a judge just because as a teenager they drank a lot and hooked up with girls.  So did I.  So did almost every guy I know.

If it was a (accurate) sexual boast, that is conclusive proof that he's lied, right now in the present, about that relationship and probably in his self-offered statement that he was a virgin.

That's the part that keeps getting glossed over - something less than criminal but unseemly from the past, or a minor criminal act like repeated underage drinking, could easily be excusable if the candidate's strong enough in other regards, but lying about it right now would be a current, ongoing, major character issue.

I agree, Supreme Court nominees can't lie (except about how much they love precedent).  I haven't kept up on all of the allegations or Kavanaugh's statements.  I was surprised to hear the "virgin" admission, just because if there were multiple people he'd had sex with, you'd expect somebody to come forward to dispute that.  But, if he was a heavy-drinking, socially-awkward virgin, lying about it contemporaneously would make him like millions of other teenagers and young adults. 

What's he saying about his drinking?  I know that a lot of states changed their drinking age in 1984, but I'd be extremely skeptical of any claim that Kavanaugh never drank unless legally able to do so.


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

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #791 on: September 25, 2018, 01:16:31 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4314
  • Tommy Points: 359
Welp, one of Kavanaugh's defenders has jumped ship after she learned of an offensive yearbook reference to her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Interestingly, there is a reference to "boofing" in the yearbook page. Could be a kayaking maneuver.... or it could be the other thing. There are a lot of things in that yearbook page that are party-related, and likely lewd. "FFFFFFFourth of July" is another.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-fffffffourth-of-july/

Is the urban dictionary accurate dating back to 35 years?  Kavanaugh added another "F" or four.

I do think the "Renate" reference is probably a sexual boast, which is conclusive proof that Kavanaugh was...  a teenager male who was interested in sex? 

I guess it's just the social environment I was raised in, but I don't find somebody to be unfit as a judge just because as a teenager they drank a lot and hooked up with girls.  So did I.  So did almost every guy I know.

I think most people agree with you about the hooking up but he appears to be lying about it now in front of the Senate and the nation.  I say "appears to be lying" as this is all still he said she said but as the apparent lying becomes more focused, the appearance of lying will start to equal is probably lying and at that point, is it right to confirm someone who is probably (but not 100% proven) lying?  I know this is a "no right answer" type of question but I think if the republicans really cared about what is best for the country, they would punt on Kavanaugh and roll out the next ultra conservative candidate they have in their folio.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #792 on: September 25, 2018, 01:28:06 PM »

Offline The Oracle

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 986
  • Tommy Points: 271
Why would you call a million witnesses in to testify in a hearing where the accuser has not made a complaint under oath, won't turn over evidence, all the witnesses contradict/don't validate her version, and there is a solid chance she won't show up because her story is incredibly flimsy and will be easily picked apart under scrutiny??

Because you're vetting a candidate for a lifelong appointment to one of the 3-4 highest, most powerful offices in the country. If Ford's story falls apart, can't be corroborated, seems insincere, that's a point in his favor, not against it. And he needs them.  In a criminal process, the defendant is not guilty by default, and there needs to be a compelling case to change that. In vetting a candidate for high office, it's the reverse - they're unfit by default and must show enough to change that. There's a lot of rhetorical effort on convincing people it's the opposite, that they're entitled by default and something has to "disqualify" or "keep them out", but ultimately the focus is on the office, and the candidate's gotta prove they're suitable for it.

That requires a lot of things, but one of them is that they need to clear up, as much as possible, any serious allegations of misconduct. That means refuting the allegations if possible, but if not the kinds of things you're expecting would suffice pretty well too. Either way it means as thorough an investigation as possible. Blowing off the allegation, deciding in advance it must be all mades up by the badpeoples, or doing a cursory sham investigation just makes the candidate unvetted and the process illegitimate.
The other relevant witnesses have all signed sworn statements that they have no knowledge of said gathering.  If for some reason they need to hear from them after Ford and Kavanaugh testify they can be called later (not likely).  Has Ford even started her drive across country yet?  Did she even bother packing a suitcase?  Or has she been kicking back drinking Pina Coladas all week watching her go fund me account balance go through the roof?

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #793 on: September 25, 2018, 01:36:19 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3710
  • Tommy Points: 617
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/09/25/kavanaugh-was-aggressive-and-belligerent-when-drunk-his-yale-roommate-says/23541187/

Quote
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale University came forward late Monday, describing Kavanaugh as “a heavy drinker” who became “aggressive and belligerent” when drunk.

James Roche, Kavanaugh’s roommate in Fall 1983, said in a statement posted on Twitter that they didn’t socialize together much, but would chat at night after Kavanaugh would return from outings with his friends.

“It is from this experience that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk,” Roche said.

Just a bit more paint for the canvas.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #794 on: September 25, 2018, 01:37:01 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42001
  • Tommy Points: 2458
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Why would you call a million witnesses in to testify in a hearing where the accuser has not made a complaint under oath, won't turn over evidence, all the witnesses contradict/don't validate her version, and there is a solid chance she won't show up because her story is incredibly flimsy and will be easily picked apart under scrutiny??

Because you're vetting a candidate for a lifelong appointment to one of the 3-4 highest, most powerful offices in the country. If Ford's story falls apart, can't be corroborated, seems insincere, that's a point in his favor, not against it. And he needs them.  In a criminal process, the defendant is not guilty by default, and there needs to be a compelling case to change that. In vetting a candidate for high office, it's the reverse - they're unfit by default and must show enough to change that. There's a lot of rhetorical effort on convincing people it's the opposite, that they're entitled by default and something has to "disqualify" or "keep them out", but ultimately the focus is on the office, and the candidate's gotta prove they're suitable for it.

That requires a lot of things, but one of them is that they need to clear up, as much as possible, any serious allegations of misconduct. That means refuting the allegations if possible, but if not the kinds of things you're expecting would suffice pretty well too. Either way it means as thorough an investigation as possible. Blowing off the allegation, deciding in advance it must be all mades up by the badpeoples, or doing a cursory sham investigation just makes the candidate unvetted and the process illegitimate.
The other relevant witnesses have all signed sworn statements that they have no knowledge of said gathering.  If for some reason they need to hear from them after Ford and Kavanaugh testify they can be called later (not likely).  Has Ford even started her drive across country yet?  Did she even bother packing a suitcase?  Or has she been kicking back drinking Pina Coladas all week watching her go fund me account balance go through the roof?

Does she have a GoFundMe account?

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required