[One Degree]

So, contrary to the title of this thread this news report has ZERO impact or effect on the original 3 women who came forward or wrote letters.
Like I said Brietbart is all fake news.

None of the three had any collaboration. There is nothing to discredit since it should be obvious they already discredited themselves. Every person any of them offered for collaboration denied knowing anything about it. Seems pretty clear they made it up when their own witnesses deny being witnesses. The only thing missing is their confessions. How much ‘proof of innocence’ do you need?

[Steve_American]

None of the three had any collaboration. There is nothing to discredit since it should be obvious they already discredited themselves. Every person any of them offered for collaboration denied knowing anything about it. Seems pretty clear they made it up when their own witnesses deny being witnesses. The only thing missing is their confessions. How much ‘proof of innocence’ do you need?

The whole situation is murky to me.
I don't understand just who the 2nd FBI (so called) investigation talked to.
I think it talked to very few people.
The people the 2 women listed didn't say it didn't happen. They said something like, 'hay it was 35 or 40 years ago. I went to a lot of parties. I have no way of knowing which party she is referring to. I don't remember seeing anything like that, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen in a different room.'
OTOH, the Judge guy was accused of being complicit. If he remembered of course he would lie as long as he could.

Three women came forward and accused Kavanaugh of this sot of thing.
That has been considered collaboration if a few other cases.
The women were hounded by people on the Repud side.
They seem to have been more damaged than helped by their coming forward.
The main one started telling people about him as soon as he was placed on the 'short list'.
Zero women came forward with a story about being approached to take money to lie about Kavanaugh. This lack of evidence tells me that there was no attempt made to go and find 3 women to lie.
Right now, I am strongly on the side that it is more likely true that he did some bad things back then.
And, anyway, Kavanaugh showed that he lacks the judicial temperament required to be elevated to the US SC.

[One Degree]

The whole situation is murky to me.
I don't understand just who the 2nd FBI (so called) investigation talked to.
I think it talked to very few people.
The people the 2 women listed didn't say it didn't happen. They said something like, 'hay it was 35 or 40 years ago. I went to a lot of parties. I have no way of knowing which party she is referring to. I don't remember seeing anything like that, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen in a different room.'
OTOH, the Judge guy was accused of being complicit. If he remembered of course he would lie as long as he could.

Three women came forward and accused Kavanaugh of this sot of thing.
That has been considered collaboration if a few other cases.
The women were hounded by people on the Repud side.
They seem to have been more damaged than helped by their coming forward.
The main one started telling people about him as soon as he was placed on the 'short list'.
Zero women came forward with a story about being approached to take money to lie about Kavanaugh. This lack of evidence tells me that there was no attempt made to go and find 3 women to lie.
Right now, I am strongly on the side that it is more likely true that he did some bad things back then.
And, anyway, Kavanaugh showed that he lacks the judicial temperament required to be elevated to the US SC.

Why? Because he was upset people were falsely accusing him? How about the simple fact Democrats have repeatedly dug up decades old allegations. They just couldn’t find anything this time and decided to bluff. Their bluff was called and they had nothing. No lawyer would have ever brought these allegations if they were going to court. The judge would have jumped all over them. They were invented for media use with no intentions of being challenged in a hearing. I can think of no other reason than deliberately false allegations. Lawyers are not that stupid when they have nothing.

[Steve_American]

Why? Because he was upset people were falsely accusing him? How about the simple fact Democrats have repeatedly dug up decades old allegations. They just couldn’t find anything this time and decided to bluff. Their bluff was called and they had nothing. No lawyer would have ever brought these allegations if they were going to court. The judge would have jumped all over them. They were invented for media use with no intentions of being challenged in a hearing. I can think of no other reason than deliberately false allegations. Lawyers are not that stupid when they have nothing.

We were not in a court of law.
We were in a hearing to determine if he should be elevated to the US SC.
The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is good for the courts where the state can and does employ its full power to dig up all the evidence it can find and to force all the witness to testify.
In this hearing, none of that was allowed by the Repuds to happen.
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence standard makes more sense.
What other instances of the Dems bringing forward decades old dirt to sling at Repuds are you referring to?

There is a reason that our system of justice requires jury members to be uncommitted at the start of the trial. You and I were not uncommitted at the start of the hearings, so we both should not be allowed to weigh the evidence. And neither should have any of the Senators in the Senate, for that matter.

It seems likely to me that you assume that the Dems intended to block every SC nominee for the next 2 years. I find it hard to believe that the Dems are that stupid. After the 3rd guy was trashed with false accusations the Public would turn on them in a huge way. And remember, the Repuds would be fighting back to find out a reason why the accusers would lie and they could easily find evidence if there was a widespread effort to bribe random people to lie about the nominee.
. . Without that assumption that you seem to be making, just what did the Dems gain by going after this particular nominee; especially after they let the last one slide by mostly unopposed. That is given that they would let the next one go by also.

[Hindsite]

There is evidence that the first woman was mistaken. Her memory was not as good as she claimed. The other two women recanted their stories as having been fabricated because of the Me-Too movement.

[Steve_American]

There is evidence that the first woman was mistaken. Her memory was not as good as she claimed. The other two women recanted their stories as having been fabricated because of the Me-Too movement.

Did you get that from Brietbart also?
I have not seen that in my media.

[Hindsite]

Did you get that from Brietbart also?
I have not seen that in my media.

The liberal media is biased against any news that is not politically favorable to the Democrats.
So they will try not to cover it unless forced to.

[One Degree]

We were not in a court of law.
We were in a hearing to determine if he should be elevated to the US SC.
The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is good for the courts where the state can and does employ its full power to dig up all the evidence it can find and to force all the witness to testify.
In this hearing, none of that was allowed by the Repuds to happen.
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence standard makes more sense.
What other instances of the Dems bringing forward decades old dirt to sling at Repuds are you referring to?

There is a reason that our system of justice requires jury members to be uncommitted at the start of the trial. You and I were not uncommitted at the start of the hearings, so we both should not be allowed to weigh the evidence. And neither should have any of the Senators in the Senate, for that matter.

It seems likely to me that you assume that the Dems intended to block every SC nominee for the next 2 years. I find it hard to believe that the Dems are that stupid. After the 3rd guy was trashed with false accusations the Public would turn on them in a huge way. And remember, the Repuds would be fighting back to find out a reason why the accusers would lie and they could easily find evidence if there was a widespread effort to bribe random people to lie about the nominee.
. . Without that assumption that you seem to be making, just what did the Dems gain by going after this particular nominee; especially after they let the last one slide by mostly unopposed. That is given that they would let the next one go by also.

You say the public would not tolerate 3 accusations while asking me what the other decades old violations were. Obviously, your (the public) short memory would allow them to do it. You don’t remember Roy Moore or how old some of the accusations against Trump are? This tactics of the Dems that anything you have ever done in your life is proof of your overall morality is a slap in the face to why we have statutes of limitations and juvenile court sealed records. If Kavanaugh had actually been convicted of this at 17, the records would probably be sealed and we would never know about it. Yet, he is crucified without evidence.

[Steve_American]

Why? Because he was upset people were falsely accusing him? How about the simple fact Democrats have repeatedly dug up decades old allegations. They just couldn’t find anything this time and decided to bluff. Their bluff was called and they had nothing. No lawyer would have ever brought these allegations if they were going to court. The judge would have jumped all over them. They were invented for media use with no intentions of being challenged in a hearing. I can think of no other reason than deliberately false allegations. Lawyers are not that stupid when they have nothing.

These are your 2 posts. In between I replied.

You say the public would not tolerate 3 accusations while asking me what the other decades old violations were. Obviously, your (the public) short memory would allow them to do it. You don’t remember Roy Moore or how old some of the accusations against Trump are? This tactics of the Dems that anything you have ever done in your life is proof of your overall morality is a slap in the face to why we have statutes of limitations and juvenile court sealed records. If Kavanaugh had actually been convicted of this at 17, the records would probably be sealed and we would never know about it. Yet, he is crucified without evidence.

OK, thank you for supplying recent 2 examples of decades old allegations.

Because America is so divided these days the 2 sides see different realities.
D. Trump was accused during the campaign. Also, during the campaign a tape surfaced of him confessing to or falsely bragging about exactly the sort of things he was accused of. There were more than a few women who accused him. For my side, him confessing and the number of accusation meany he was probably guilty of a few such incidents if not all. So, I don't see this as 'digging something up". It is exactly the sort of thing that should happen in any campaign for high office.

Roy Moore is another similar. There were about 3 reports and at least one included that Moore asked the girls permission to date her or take her out on a date. Did Moore categorically deny every claim, specifically that he had asked the girl's mother for permission to date her daughter. There were other allegations. Again I found it reasonable that the stories were true. They were creepy.

I already explained why the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard should not apply for a person who wants to be a US SC justice. Of course, a half hearted investigation is not going to reach that standard. And i already explained why it matters that no such digging into decades old past happened when Gorsuch was being confirmed. Dems were 3 times as mad that they didn't get their US SC justice to even get a hearing for over a year. If there was a time for the Dems to manufacture dirt it was then.

Your mind was made up before the hearings started. You didn't change your mind. That isn't surprising.

[One Degree]

OK, thank you for supplying recent 2 examples of decades old allegations.

Because America is so divided these days the 2 sides see different realities.
D. Trump was accused during the campaign. Also, during the campaign a tape surfaced of him confessing to or falsely bragging about exactly the sort of things he was accused of. There were more than a few women who accused him. For my side, him confessing and the number of accusation meany he was probably guilty of a few such incidents if not all. So, I don't see this as 'digging something up". It is exactly the sort of thing that should happen in any campaign for high office.

Roy Moore is another similar. There were about 3 reports and at least one included that Moore asked the girls permission to date her or take her out on a date. Did Moore categorically deny every claim, specifically that he had asked the girl's mother for permission to date her daughter. There were other allegations. Again I found it reasonable that the stories were true. They were creepy.

I already explained why the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard should not apply for a person who wants to be a US SC justice. Of course, a half hearted investigation is not going to reach that standard. And i already explained why it matters that no such digging into decades old past happened when Gorsuch was being confirmed. Dems were 3 times as mad that they didn't get their US SC justice to even get a hearing for over a year. If there was a time for the Dems to manufacture dirt it was then.

Your mind was made up before the hearings started. You didn't change your mind. That isn't surprising.

All you said was if Democrats find people to make allegations, you will believe them because you know some people are capable of such things. Guilty by reason of being human? I don’t want to rehash these cases but both Kavanaugh and Moore were judged by standards today that did not exist at the time of their supposed actions. Kavanaugh was a juvenile and his supposed actions had a one year statute of limitations. He would have never been charged by the standards that existed at the time.

[Sivad]

Which is worse, for a man to rape a woman or for a woman to falsely accuse a man of raping her?

I don't know, kavanaugh is such a dangerous scumbag that a false rape accusation might actually be justified. If some woman took down hitler or stalin with a bogus rape accusation she'd be a hero in my book. Kavanaugh isn't quite that bad but he's still a pretty fucking reprehensible chud.

[One Degree]

I don't know, kavanaugh is such a dangerous scumbag that a false rape accusation might actually be justified. If some woman took down hitler or stalin with a bogus rape accusation she'd be a hero in my book. Kavanaugh isn't quite that bad but he's still a pretty fucking reprehensible chud.

I seriously don’t understand this. What exactly do you base this on?

[Sivad]

I seriously don’t understand this. What exactly do you base this on?

His politics. He's a crazy authoritarian corporatist that doesn't respect personal rights. Would you make a bogus rape accusation against Hillary Clinton? I would, she's a deranged monster.

[One Degree]

His politics. He's a crazy authoritarian corporatist that doesn't respect personal rights. Would you make a bogus rape accusation against Hillary Clinton? I would, she's a deranged monster.

This view is in conflict with his support of ‘stare decisis’. This means there should be no fear of him being an extremist. He is conservative, but I don’t anticipate any radical positions from him. I am actually disappointed in his lack of denial of ‘stare decisis’. A true populist would refute it.
This means he may continue the support of corporate interests the same as both liberals and conservatives do, but nothing unusual.

[Sivad]

He wants to expand executive authority, strengthen executive immunity, he's in favor of the mass surveillance state, he doesn't respect reproductive rights, and he thinks net neutrality is "unlawful". The guy is a nightmare.

[Steve_American]

He wants to expand executive authority, strengthen executive immunity, he's in favor of the mass surveillance state, he doesn't respect reproductive rights, and he thinks net neutrality is "unlawful". The guy is a nightmare.

Yes.
And, Repuds lie their ass off.
You watch, he will not respect ‘stare decisis’, when push comes to shove.

[One Degree]

He wants to expand executive authority, strengthen executive immunity, he's in favor of the mass surveillance state, he doesn't respect reproductive rights, and he thinks net neutrality is "unlawful". The guy is a nightmare.

Nightmare? You realize this is exactly what ‘balance of power’ is all about? This struggle was built into the constitution and has been ongoing since day 1. This hardly makes Kavanaugh an extremist. His views on reproductive rights are hardly big news either. I will be surprised if he does more than return it to the states.
I am not sure anyone knows what is right about controlling a media with so much influence.

[Steve_American]

Nightmare? You realize this is exactly what ‘balance of power’ is all about? This struggle was built into the constitution and has been ongoing since day 1. This hardly makes Kavanaugh an extremist. His views on reproductive rights are hardly big news either. I will be surprised if he does more than return it to the states.
I am not sure anyone knows what is right about controlling a media with so much influence.

You said he will respect ‘stare decisis’, now you say,"His views on reproductive rights are hardly big news either. I will be surprised if he does more than return it to the states."
So, which is it?

[One Degree]

You said he will respect ‘stare decisis’, now you say,"His views on reproductive rights are hardly big news either. I will be surprised if he does more than return it to the states."
So, which is it?

I am not sure I understand your question. The best I can tell is you think my comments require him to support all liberal interpretations. That’s not the way ‘stare decisis’ works. Both sides present precedents. Due to his conservatism, he will probably favor the conservative arguments but not blindly ignoring the other precedents. This will result in a more ‘middle of the road’ opinion compared to a justice who devalues ‘stare decisis’.

[Steve_American]

I am not sure I understand your question. The best I can tell is you think my comments require him to support all liberal interpretations. That’s not the way ‘stare decisis’ works. Both sides present precedents. Due to his conservatism, he will probably favor the conservative arguments but not blindly ignoring the other precedents. This will result in a more ‘middle of the road’ opinion compared to a justice who devalues ‘stare decisis’.

I am quite sure that ‘stare decisis’ means "it has been decided. That it is settled law.

If he just returns it to the states then that undoes the whole opinion. That is the opposite of "settled law". Any change from the last one is the opposite of ‘stare decisis’.

Do you think that it would be a violation of ‘stare decisis’ if the SC went back to Plessy v Fergison and overturned Brown v board of Education? I do.