[Stormsmith]

I think it's interesting that Kavanaugh hasn't offered to take a lie detector test nor insisted on an FBI investigation. That said, I agree the GOP and it's attitude regarding women is the problem. I can't for the life of me see why they're supporting your president, a man who's going to be up on charges damned soon. These charges will include bank/money laundering, arsing about with Russians, and possibly treason. How good will they look after the fact?

American women are more inclined to vote for family issues than their banker's. If a few more female GOPpers ran for office, you'd have a much more progressive life, and it would benefit everyone. Imagine how much more money families would have if women's wages were bumped up 20%. Better pensions. Health care would be a done deal, and so on. I am delighted to see so many Democratic women are running for office. Trump certainly has had an effect with them.


(When this happens, better wages, healthcare which will spare people from selling their homes for healthcare, etc., who will the GOP look to for cheap wages?)

[SpecialOlympian]

Kavanaugh is a scum bag and a big spender. I hope more people accuse him of wrongdoing. He is not all right which explains the attempts to discourage investigations into his past.

Hey.

He was cool enough to drop $200,000 on baseball tickets for his friends that he can't readily explain.

There is nothing suspicious about that. All of his friends paid him back. Also, he will enact my totally rule in favor of my extremely considered and consistent ideology of: *crickets chirping* which is why I support him.

[blackjack21]

I reflect the sentiments of others in this thread: Kavanaugh is a dipshit and is a pretty shitty human being based on just his recent behavior, but Feinstein is also a piece of shit.

Potty language aside, what do you mean? Kavanaugh is a long way from a dipshit. That doesn't mean you shouldn't disagree with him. What exactly has he done or how has he behaved that gives you such disdain?

I'm not entirely certain about the truthfulness of this incident, and the fact that she was sitting on this to begin with makes her a pretty big scumbag. As far as I know, the statute of limitations are past and the accuser herself seems uncooperative, so I'm not sure what Feinstein was thinking besides hoping this drama was going somewhere (or maybe she was betting on a public circus over the accusation).

Clearly, they were looking to delay the vote. They already had this information, withheld it from the proceedings and are now using it to suggest it is some sort of last minute thing when it is not.

Both Feinstein and Kavanaugh are awful people. I say lock them in a room with broken-off wooden poles and have them fight to the death for who gets to leave.

Feinstein is a fossil. Kavanaugh would win that one easily.

That's right. I have little doubt that something happened. That is not the point.

I support the me-too movement. Women close to me have been victimized and I abhor that. Clearly something should be done. But this is a weapon that should be used very carefully. There is a real danger to women that this just becomes old-hat. If he did it, shame on him.

Shame on the 17 year old boy. The man 36 years later? Are we to be continually shamed for wetting the bed at 5 years old? At what point does that stop? We're talking a full adult life of public service. Even if he were guilty, he's certainly lived an adult life where there does not seem to be any sort of corroborating behavior suggesting criminality.

I do not support the #metoo movement. If women want equality, they need to bear the burdens of equality too. That means having the responsibility to make timely complaints and having some particulars when you make them.

The bigger problem, as I see it, is that "women" don't need this to oppose Kavanaugh. He is about as bad a candidate for women as one could imagine. If a tiny fraction of women would actually get off their asses and write their senator that they are opposed to this guy and he would be over. Would they like the alternative? Not hardly. On thing is clear and it is this:

Well, I agree that a substantive basis for opposing him is more appropriate. However, I do not agree that "women" would all arrive at the same opinion or conclusion. Roe v. Wade is a long time ago. Women of a certain age are all the products of parents that had children whether they wanted to or not. There aren't as many children of the licentious these days, because many of them have been aborted. Meanwhile, America is making up for the loss of population with immigrants. My maid is coming tomorrow. She gets a ride to my house. Why? She doesn't drive. Mexican. Very traditional. Asian women are also considerably more socially conservative. They aren't going to be passionate about abortion when they aren't having irresponsible sex or finding themselves completely inebriated and raped. So they aren't as likely to find themselves out marching with the leftists. It's not just about politics. At a subjective level, they just have no life experience or value system that relates to the more radical feminists.

Get off of your asses and get to work. Grow a pair of ovaries, stop watching Dr. Phil and write to your Senator.

That is a problem too. Many people simply aren't passionate about politics.

Tell him/her that you will not vote for him again if he confirms a candidate like Kavanaugh. If you are not willing to do this then screw you.

Unlike you, I don't think Kavanaugh is a rapist. Whereas, I thought it was probably likely the Roy Moore dated underaged girls. The political problem is that women have fathers, brothers and sons--and some of these women depend upon a man financially. So seeing men's careers ruined on a completely unfounded allegation from 35 years ago when the man in question was a minor is unsettling to say the least. I wonder if our Jewish interlocutors--Feinstein, Blumenthal and Schumer--will champion the presumption of innocence if some new Hitler figure comes around and accuses them of things they didn't do (or maybe did do). They should know better than to engage in blood libels.

Former classmates are beginning to come out and verify that they had heard about the rape.

She asked a friend of a Supreme Court nominee out to the prom 35 or 36 years ago and he stood her up and got drunk instead. Is this really how the Democrats want to conduct judicial nominations?

Because everything on Facebook is true!

If high school parties is all they have, there's nothing. We grew up in the Animal House generation. Kavanaugh was probably a guy who got "wasted" on half a beer.

It's almost as if they prepared it in anticipation of some unforeseeable event.

It was unforeseeable with Clarence Thomas. This sort of bullshit has been foreseeable ever since.

If everything she said is true, what is he guilty of?

He wouldn't have been charged back in the 1980s either. Back then, women wanted to be in rock bands.

CONFIRMATION OF KAVANAUGH WILL RESULT IN WORK - TO - RULE STRIKES

Hit 'em where it hurts

Which will do exactly nothing, except maybe get women fired or side line them for promotion. You do realize that the goal of your side is to prevent him from getting confirmed, not to bitch and squeal endlessly after he is confirmed, right?

Kavanaugh is a scum bag and a big spender. I hope more people accuse him of wrongdoing. He is not all right which explains the attempts to discourage investigations into his past.

Being a scum bag isn't a crime and neither is being a big spender. These are arbitrary accusations of no significant merit. If you don't like him because he is ideologically opposed to your political objectives, you'd be better understood by people if you said so. What would more people accusing him of wrongdoing accomplish? Unless you have a basis for legal action, it is nothing more than media hullabaloo. There have been six FBI investigations into his past. They do it for each job change. All the FBI can do is amend their report. It is not a legal question. It is a political question.

The problem here is that we are focusing on Kavanaugh. He is not the problem. The problem is that the republican party is supporting this guy. He is only here because he offers Trump amnesty. That's all. Otherwise he is a nobody.

Judges can't grant amnesty. SCOTUS justices have just one vote. Kavanaugh was one of the people Trump indicated he would appoint if elected. He's a strict constructionist, which is why he is being opposed by the left. That's why they opposed Bork, and why they tried to impugn Clarence Thomas too.

The republican party is considering sending an accused rapist to the supreme court. And they are doing it fast. Why? Because mid terms. The very idea that they would do this without properly investigating it is not even the question. They guy should be out already. He has a lifelong job as a federal judge already. He is not being hurt. The question is why the republicans would so disrespect women that they would even consider this guy.

He hasn't been charged with anything, and in fact cannot be charged with rape for something 36 years ago. There are no witnesses. She did not make the accusation during the hearings. They sprung this after the hearings were over, because they had nothing else left. She can testify under oath if she would like to. Apparently, she is refusing to do that, and is calling for an FBI investigation. The FBI doesn't have authority to investigate non-Federal matters. They can assist local law enforcement if local law enforcement requested it. However, Ford has to specify a particular act at a particular time and date at a particular location. If she cannot or will not do that, there isn't even a political question to consider. It is merely the delaying tactics of leftists who do not want a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court. Kennedy was a weasel, and they want him replaced by a weasel. Kavanaugh doesn't fit the bill.

I think the republicans realize that women are not a meaningful political force in America these days.

Women don't vote as a bloc. They never have.

For some reason, that no man will ever understand, they fail repeatedly to support women candidates or women's issues. I am at a loss.

It's the same reason men don't vote as a bloc. Kavanaugh has been maligned by a baseless charge for which there is no evidence, no witnesses, is not prosecutable, and clearly has no bearing on his conduct as a federal judge when among his other duties is to ensure that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yet, we have people like Chuck Schumer and Richard Blumenthal (ignoring the obvious fact that they are Jews), ostensibly men unless they use other pronouns, going along with Senator Feinstein's (also a Jew) ruse. Why aren't they taking the man's side? Why aren't they presuming the defendant (who cannot be prosecuted anyway) innocent? Could it be political partisanship, perhaps?

I do not like wimpy women. I was not raised by one and I avoid their company. I did not date them and I did not marry one. But the fact is that the term "the weaker sex" is being validated every day, day after day. Perhaps there will come a time when women stand up for themselves rather than asking we men to take care of them. Probably not in my lifetime.

Feminism and lesbianism seem to have a common root in low sexual dimorphism. High sexual dimorphism is a huge problem for egalitarians. It is good that leftists continue to try things that will never work. At least they are wasting their time instead of being productive, which would be terrible for humanity.

[Finfinder]

Trump gave the left a gift when he came out with his list of supreme court nominees. Wonder how long they have been sitting on this information? The Democrats continue to prove they actually do stand for something and that is women are to be viewed and used as political currency. Proven over and over again and no one should be surprised look, no further than the lefts pinnacle of achievement in using women. The standard, the hero, the rapist, and two term president they loved.

[SpecialOlympian]

Stop try change narrative, Finfinder. Conservatives want women not have choice. Kavanaugh not give woman choice: he consistent. It nobody fault but Kavanaugh that he rape woman. Stop try change narrative.

Mind you, McConnell told Trump that there were easier judges to nominate than Kavanaugh. It's just that none of the others had a record of supporting the Nixonian idea that "If the president does it, it's not illegal."

[Finfinder]

Stop try change narrative, Finfinder. Conservatives want women not have choice. Kavanaugh not give woman choice: he consistent. It nobody fault but Kavanaugh that he rape woman. Stop try change narrative.

Hey bud I'm glad you are still a super fan of my posts. Although I take a real chance in saying that since your stance on death to people who you disagree with could stick to me.

Stop try change narrative, Finfinder. Conservatives want women not have choice. Kavanaugh not give woman choice: he consistent. It nobody fault but Kavanaugh that he rape woman. Stop try change narrative.

Mind you, McConnell told Trump that there were easier judges to nominate than Kavanaugh. It's just that none of the others had a record of supporting the Nixonian idea that "If the president does it, it's not illegal."

I thought the narrative is about using women for political gain? What is the narrative or conspiracy as you claim. I can't wait to here this. Is Elvis or Michael Jackson involved in anyway?

[Finfinder]

[SpecialOlympian]

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[Finfinder]

I no claim conspiracy. What you talk about? What narrative you try change?

You are asking yourself that question ? That's a strange response,considering you posed the question the question first. So what is it, do you need to sleep it off first ?

[blackjack21]

Trump gave the left a gift when he came out with his list of supreme court nominees. Wonder how long they have been sitting on this information? The Democrats continue to prove they actually do stand for something and that is women are to be viewed and used as political currency. Proven over and over again and no one should be surprised look, no further than the lefts pinnacle of achievement in using women. The standard, the hero, the rapist, and two term president they loved.

Maybe. Then again, maybe he gave them an unwitting opportunity to reveal to the public who they really are. There is sort of a spiritual dimension to this too. There are people who clearly believe that if a person did something awful 35 years ago, they are forever doomed. That is a distinctly un-Christian view. There is a significant possibility that Kavanaugh is the victim of a person bearing false witness--a truly dark and ominous thing to do to someone. It is among the ten commandments that one should not bear false witness. It is a foundational principle of justice that the accused is presumed innocent. Yet, the people who seem ready to believe this with no evidence whatsoever also seem to think that in spite of having lived an exemplary life, there is virtually no redemption whatsoever from a charge for which there is no evidence whatsoever. There is just something evil about that sort of sentiment. Perhaps I see things that way, because I am a Christian.

[Rich]

The republican party is considering sending an accused rapist to the supreme court. And they are doing it fast.

I fail to see why that's a big problem. We want a culture where victims feel empowered to make accusations, even where they can't prove those accusations. Such a culture must inevitably empower women to make false, or mistaken allegations. A lot of people care very deeply about the supreme court, surly whether its a Conservative or a Liberal judge that's being nominated, there's a good chance that there's one woman that's willing to make a false accusation, to stop their appointment.

The other key point is that memory is notoriously unreliable, and the memories of people that have suffered severe psychological trauma are more unreliable, those that have suffered severe abuse in childhood the most unreliable of all. There was a time when inter racial marriage was taboo, now its so common, no one thinks twice about it. I suspect it will be like that with rape and sexual assault accusations. So many men will have at least one unproven sexual / physical assault accusation against them, that it will cease to carry a stigma.

[Drlee]

On Trum's list of possible supreme court justices there were 21 men and 4 women. Perhaps that tells us all we need to know about the republican party these days. Two out of nine.

I don't think Kavanaugh is a strict constructionist. If he was he would favor striking down Citizen's United. He would not opine that the president could not be indited. *A strict constructionist would leave the president subject to state law after all.

Kavanaugh is a pro-business republican party soldier. It is up to him to prove otherwise.

[Suntzu]

I wonder what the current male/female ratio is for sitting federal judges. Looks like Christine Blasey was the class slut.

[SpecialOlympian]

On Trum's list of possible supreme court justices there were 21 men and 4 women. Perhaps that tells us all we need to know about the republican party these days. Two out of nine.

I don't think Kavanaugh is a strict constructionist. If he was he would favor striking down Citizen's United. He would not opine that the president could not be indited. *A strict constructionist would leave the president subject to state law after all.

Kavanaugh is a pro-business republican party soldier. It is up to him to prove otherwise.

Constructionist/Originalist thinking is all just a smoke screen for being a pro-business Republican party soldier.

[blackjack21]

I fail to see why that's a big problem.

You missed Drlee's slight of hand. He says,

The republican party is considering sending an accused rapist to the supreme court. And they are doing it fast.

@Rich The term "rapist" implies a conclusion of fact. Kavanaugh is ostensibly accused of rape. That does not make him a rapist. Raping someone makes you a rapist. We do not have a sworn statement from anybody that Kavanaugh raped them or anybody else. All we have is a distraction at this point with the obvious intent to delay a confirmation vote to the US Senate.

We want a culture where victims feel empowered to make accusations, even where they can't prove those accusations.

It's way beyond that. They are pushing for a culture where it's okay to have a hearing about someone's character, not bring up a rape accusation, then reveal a rape accusation that isn't direct or sworn after the hearing and claim that the hearing somehow was not thorough enough or fair. The Republicans aren't rushing at all. The Democrats knew this three months ago and chose not to address it during the hearings.

A lot of people care very deeply about the supreme court, surly whether its a Conservative or a Liberal judge that's being nominated, there's a good chance that there's one woman that's willing to make a false accusation, to stop their appointment.

Yes, but there is one political faction that sees the court as a way of shaping public policy outside of the political process. Strict constitutionalists thwart that agenda. For example, there is no right whatsoever in the constitution for gay marriage. It was just straight legislating from the bench. Roberts, supposedly a conservative, even upheld legislation with the government and politicians lying directly to voters in claiming that ObamaCare contained a mandate, but it was just a tax. Such wanton disinformation from the people passing the legislation should make the legislation unconstitutional for vagueness alone. Strict constructionists will force Congress to legislate, rather than trying to get the court to mandate something as though it is somehow implied by the 14th Amendment.

I don't think Kavanaugh is a strict constructionist. If he was he would favor striking down Citizen's United.

To strike down Citizens United, the Court has to strictly construe the 14th Amendment, which would toss out so many things you like, such as Roe v. Wade, which has nothing to do with whether or not a former slave is a citizen of the United States and entitled to the same protections as other citizens.

He would not opine that the president could not be indited{sic}.

The president cannot be indicted under Federal law unless he is prosecuting himself, because he is the chief law enforcement officer and without his consent such an indictment would be tantamount to insubordination. Indicting him under state law is a separate question.

Kavanaugh is a pro-business republican party soldier. It is up to him to prove otherwise.

Kavanaugh doesn't have to prove anything. It's up to the Senate to consent or not consent. The problem for the Democrats is that Harry Reid decided--rightly or wrongly--to get rid of a 60 vote requirement for judicial nominees. He did not suppose--nobody did it seems--that Trump would become president of the United States. Trump's victory of Hillary Clinton is now a part of history, and it will be remembered as a significant turning point in the nation's history, I believe.

Looks like Christine Blasey was the class slut.

Well her Latina friend sure did lament all the drinking her prom date did. I'm guessing Christine Blasey was as much of a partier as the rest of them, and part of her non-recollection is due to being hopelessly inebriated.

Constructionist/Originalist thinking is all just a smoke screen for being a pro-business Republican party soldier.

Okay. Whatever. It's really about preventing decisions like Roe v. Wade, Obergefell, and even Robert's fucked up ruling on ObamaCare. In my view, strict constructionism is sorely needed to bring order to the political process.

[Suntzu]

You missed Drlee's slight of hand. He says,


@Rich The term "rapist" implies a conclusion of fact. Kavanaugh is ostensibly accused of rape. That does not make him a rapist. Raping someone makes you a rapist. We do not have a sworn statement from anybody that Kavanaugh raped them or anybody else. All we have is a distraction at this point with the obvious intent to delay a confirmation vote to the US Senate.


It's way beyond that. They are pushing for a culture where it's okay to have a hearing about someone's character, not bring up a rape accusation, then reveal a rape accusation that isn't direct or sworn after the hearing and claim that the hearing somehow was not thorough enough or fair. The Republicans aren't rushing at all. The Democrats knew this three months ago and chose not to address it during the hearings.


Yes, but there is one political faction that sees the court as a way of shaping public policy outside of the political process. Strict constitutionalists thwart that agenda. For example, there is no right whatsoever in the constitution for gay marriage. It was just straight legislating from the bench. Roberts, supposedly a conservative, even upheld legislation with the government and politicians lying directly to voters in claiming that ObamaCare contained a mandate, but it was just a tax. Such wanton disinformation from the people passing the legislation should make the legislation unconstitutional for vagueness alone. Strict constructionists will force Congress to legislate, rather than trying to get the court to mandate something as though it is somehow implied by the 14th Amendment.


To strike down Citizens United, the Court has to strictly construe the 14th Amendment, which would toss out so many things you like, such as Roe v. Wade, which has nothing to do with whether or not a former slave is a citizen of the United States and entitled to the same protections as other citizens.


The president cannot be indicted under Federal law unless he is prosecuting himself, because he is the chief law enforcement officer and without his consent such an indictment would be tantamount to insubordination. Indicting him under state law is a separate question.


Kavanaugh doesn't have to prove anything. It's up to the Senate to consent or not consent. The problem for the Democrats is that Harry Reid decided--rightly or wrongly--to get rid of a 60 vote requirement for judicial nominees. He did not suppose--nobody did it seems--that Trump would become president of the United States. Trump's victory of Hillary Clinton is now a part of history, and it will be remembered as a significant turning point in the nation's history, I believe.


Well her Latina friend sure did lament all the drinking her prom date did. I'm guessing Christine Blasey was as much of a partier as the rest of them, and part of her non-recollection is due to being hopelessly inebriated.


Okay. Whatever. It's really about preventing decisions like Roe v. Wade, Obergefell, and even Robert's fucked up ruling on ObamaCare. In my view, strict constructionism is sorely needed to bring order to the political process.

Kavanaugh has never been accused of rape.

I don't know what you would call what she alleged happened but it certainly wasn't rape.

[Rich]

Kavanaugh has never been accused of rape.

I don't know what you would call what she alleged happened but it certainly wasn't rape.

He's been accused of being an incompetent rapist, a failed rapist. In my book that's a worse than being a successful rapist. Say what you will, Bill Cosby may have an ethical deficit, his skin colour may have given him privileges in evading conviction, but overall he seems to have been an impressively competent, intelligent rapist.

[Suntzu]

Kavanaugh is a smart boy.

You figure he is too stupid to get a girls panties off?

[Rich]

Kavanaugh is a smart boy.

You figure he is too stupid to get a girls panties off?

I'm not convinced either way. I was merely addressing the accusation, I've never said its certain he's guilty.

[blackjack21]

Kavanaugh has never been accused of rape.

I don't know what you would call what she alleged happened but it certainly wasn't rape.

Well that gives rise to yet another problem: in the United States, a defendant has the right to be notified of the NATURE and CAUSE of the charges, and the right to confront their accuser. The vacillating nature of the accuser is such that she hasn't definitively stated the nature or cause, as her allegations--assuming they are hers, and not the musings of a bunch of Democratic senators and their staff--are not particular. Judges would be overturned if they tried to hold someone to answer to charges so vague.

Her unwillingness to be straight about it suggests that she is more than culpable in what may or may not have happened--that is, if anything actually happened.

:lol: He's been accused of being an incompetent rapist, a failed rapist.

Yeah. That's a bit weird too. I talked to my girlfriend tonight, and she doesn't believe Blasey's story. My girlfriend claims that she was a victim too in high school--something I consider somewhat apocryphal, as every woman seems to have such a story and from what I can surmise from a collection of such stories, they mostly seem to be simply a matter of the boys being sexually interested, but not being even marginally romantic. Yet, my girlfriend can remember when it happened, where it happened, who she told afterwards, what she was wearing and what perfume she had on. (She went out to the bleachers with a boy and I guess expected a romantic kiss, some poetry and a promise of undying affection. She got a good groping, which she characterizes as rape. ) So she's not sympathetic to Blasey's story at all.

I think the story is bullshit. If Blasey's story has any shred of truth and there is some sort of post traumatic stress, my guess is that she got shit faced drunk, started coming on to a guy who wasn't interested in her, got passed off to a guy who was (not Kavanaugh), and then got passed around and groped by a gaggle of drunk boys (probably not Kavanaugh), but was too drunk to put up much of a resistance and felt like a piece of meat afterwords. All the guys probably laughed at her after words (my guess is that Kavanaugh was part of that group, again, if there is any truth to it at all). I'll bet her panties never so much as came off. When that sort of thing happens, women feel ashamed and angry. Such events transpire, because until something serious happens, nobody comes to the girl's defense if she's drunk and partying. They are treated as drunk party girls. I'm guessing Blasey was the sort of girl that slept with the football team and was horrified when she didn't turn out to be popular with the boys, but rather was considered a slut by both the boys and girls. That's why she can't say definitively that it happened, or that it was Kavanaugh specifically. She seems to say Kavanaugh's friend Judge was there. He denies the event ever transpired.

What's getting weirder is that they are trying to get Kavanaugh to testify before the nature and cause of charges are born out against him. This is contrary to the rule of law. This is the sort of shit that the Star Chamber was accused of doing--making people answer to charges they could not see, evidence they could not examine or challenge, etc.

To be very honest, I would have no moral qualms whatsoever killing the people pushing this narrative if I had a lawful order to do so. It would be a sad burden as taking human life isn't something that should ever be undertaken lightly, but it would be more than in the interest of justice and in the interests of posterity. What these people are proposing is nothing short of an end to the rule of law, to be supplanted to rule by mob justice. Defendants answering to non-specific charges that are not sworn to under oath? Defendants having to defend themselves before prosecutions present their case? Defendants being presumed guilty? Defendants being held to answer to charges when they were legally minors decades later, well after the statute of limitations have run? Honestly, if this were a foreign country and you were a soldier ordered to invade and kill these people, would you really have a moral problem with it? What the Democrats are proposing as new standards of public conduct are the sorts of things we tell our soldiers are a justification or rationale to kill America's enemies with ruthless efficiency and without remorse or pity. Given what Senator Gillibrand is calling for, why should we believe that Vladimir Putin is a bad guy in comparison? (Of course, he is accused of things that cannot be proven or disproven either--and of which he's probably guilty or at least an accessory or a co-conspirator)

None of these Democrats are introspective enough to see that pushing Harry Reid to abandon the 60-vote majority was a fatal mistake. So it is unlikely they would see the fatal mistake in pushing for anti-justice or tyranny until they become the victims of it themselves. I listen to what people like Gillibrand are saying, and I see the enemy of justice. We don't need to send troops overseas. There are enough enemies of the rule of law in Washington DC, that we would do well to narrow our horizons and deal with the treachery afoot right here in the United States.

Democratic party politicians are bad people with serious character disorders. A number of spineless bastard Republicans are nearly as worthless. Jeff Flake is among them. Nothing makes me happier than to see them hitting the ash heap of history.