The Kavanaugh controversy

[River]

Democrats keep saying, they should just nominate someone else besides Kavanaugh! But Democrats could have nominated someone besides Hillary Clinton, and they didn't. Why? For the same reason Republicans didn't nominate someone else - it's not politically convenient. Yeah, yeah, different situations, different circumstances, you can't compare them, yadda yadda. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that on both sides it's just loads of partisan rationalizations.

I understand the larger point you are trying to make but you are doing it poorly. You realize that the process for nominating and electing a Presidential candidate is entirely different from choosing a Supreme Court justice, right? You're comparing a potato to an apple here. It's a lot easier to swap judicial nominees that were picked by a President than it is to swap a Presidential candidate CHOSEN BY THE ELECTORATE THAT BELONGS TO THE PARTY. If you want to compare the Kavanaugh nomination to something the Dems did, find an equivalent Presidential appointee please.

[yovargas]

Chosen by an electorate that was willing and able to rationalize away the wrongdoings of their candidate because they were part of their team.

[Frelga]

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/statu ... 1340654593

Older woman crying in photo: “How are we going to find the strength to keep fighting? Are we going to be out here for another 30 years? I don’t have 30 years left.”

Younger woman taking her photo: “I’ll be here. I’ll keep fighting.”

H/t @newscatmathis who shot Kavanaugh hearing https://t.co/iveKUEH7Sb

[IdylleSeethes]

Based on the consequences of several polls from the last 2 weeks, all I can say to liberals is please keep it up.


The Harris poll is seated in the liberal haven of Harvard, so it can’t be easily dismissed. This is a quote from Monday’s poll:

“If the FBI review finds no corroborating evidence, 60% of voters support the confirmation of Kavanaugh.”

https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps- ... -attitudes


From Rasmussen October 3:

'An angry Judge Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee late last week: “This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced advise and consent with search and destroy.” Most voters think he’s right. Even Democrats are conflicted.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the U.S. Supreme Court nominee’s statement. Thirty percent (30%) disagree, while 14% are undecided.'

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... on_process


From NPR October 3:

"Just over a month away from critical elections across the country, the wide Democratic enthusiasm advantage that has defined the 2018 campaign up to this point has disappeared, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll."

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/65401587 ... evaporates


Rasmussen also reports that Trump's approval rating went from 47% early in the hearings to 51% on October 5:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ex_history


Before you start quoting other polls, look at this:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... s_it_right

[elengil]

'An angry Judge Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee late last week: “This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced advise and consent with search and destroy.” Most voters think he’s right. Even Democrats are conflicted.

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."

Funny how quickly opinions change.

[Frelga]

Chosen by an electorate that was willing and able to rationalize away the wrongdoings of their candidate because they were part of their team.

Yov, you said yourself that Clinton's alleged wrongdoings have been thoroughly investigated by the conservatives, eager to discredit a formidable political rival. They came up with nothing except sound bites for those who wouldn't recognize a private server if it brought them dessert. What do you think was there to overlook?

Eta: here's an roundup of headlines, for when you decide what news source to follow.
https://twitter.com/lpolgreen/status/10 ... 6325446656

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This to me is the most remarkable (and disturbing) part of the whole situation to me.

The junk science Republicans used to undermine Ford and help save Kavanaugh

[Cerin]

I don't think it's a case of junk science, Voronwë. I just think they had to come up with something to say, and with the #MeToo climate, no one would dare suggest that Ford might have been lying. So if lying is off the table, what else do you have? If you've decided Kavanaugh was telling the truth and Ford can't have been lying, then she must have been mistaken.

In cases like this, where there is no evidence to support an allegation, there is no solid basis on which to decide whom to believe. So all one can do, in my view, is to withhold judgment on the question of the assault itself (or, allow your sympathies and biases to make the decision for you).

I read a book recently that dealt with memory, and presented the idea that we remake our memories every time we remember them. I didn't know if that idea was factual, but a brief google brought up an article that deals with that idea. The bottom line is that memory is a very complicated thing, and we don't understand it very well. Anyone who makes definitive statements about memory with absolute certainty is talking through their hat, imo. I think I remember exactly where I was and everything that happened when they announced that President Kennedy had been shot, but there is no way for me to test that memory for accuracy. However, there are instances of things I thought I had exact memories of, and was proven wrong.

And the final reason that I think you should not distress yourself over anything you read in the coming days, is that it almost certainly was written with a bias and agenda.

Every time we bring back an old memory, we run the risk of changing it. It’s more like opening a document on a computer – the old information enters a surprisingly vulnerable state when it can be edited, overwritten, or even deleted. It takes a while for the memory to become strengthened anew, through a process called reconsolidation. Memories aren’t just written once, but every time we remember them.

This means, somewhat ironically, that the remembering something creates a critical window in which memories can be erased or manipulated.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... rewritten/

[IdylleSeethes]

As i said before, we will probably never know the truth of Ford's accusations. What we do know is that all of those she identified as witnesses failed to support her accusation. We also know her former boyfriend accused her of lying about having never coached anyone about polygraph testing, which is another accusation we may never know the truth of. Liking what someone says and/or how they say it doesn't make it true.

It isn't reasonable to accept her accusations as facts, at this point. Doing so is a partisan act, not rational thinking.

I undertand the statute of limitations does not affect her case. I understand the pertinent police department has said it is willing to investigate her case if she files a police report. If she really wants justice, that seems like the most direct way to go after Kavanaugh and settle the whole issue. No one is talking of doing that. I can think of several reasons why the direct approach would be avoided.

[Impenitent]

The primary reason that occurs to me for not taking that course is that no one who has just been roasted over open flames willingly jumps into the fire again. I'd be retreating from the world to heal my wounds.

Sent from a tiny phone keyboard via Tapatalk - typos inevitable.

[RoseMorninStar]

I disagree with 'if she wants justice she would...' statement. Ms.Ford was not asking for Kavanaugh to be incarcerated. If that is what she wanted she would have taken it up in the jurisdiction that the alleged incident took place. Her intention was not personal 'justice' but a statement that she didn't feel he was Supreme Court justice material and that the choir boy he was portraying himself as was not accurate. Kavanaugh has told several lies and he avoided answering many statements presumably to avoid perjury. Many of Kavanaugh's acquaintances and even a college roommate have come forward and said he has not honestly portrayed himself. It's not necessarily the alleged assault, it's a matter of character. It was his character, not an individual incident, that was 'on trial'. Tables turned, would Republicans want a Justice on the Supreme Court who had so openly and belligerently showed such disdain, animosity, and hatred for Republicans and spouted conspiracy theories? Someone who showed such disrespect and lack of control? One would hope not.

We had a neighbor who used to walk around in his yard in the nude. I called the police. I didn't want him arrested or 'justice' I just wanted him to stop walking around outside in the nude. I wanted it on the police record in case the problem persisted.

Earlier in this thread I mentioned an incident in which someone had done wrong by me. I didn't think of having them imprisoned but they were a prominent person in the community, a businessman who was well known. People aren't always the 'pillar of the community' that they portray themselves to be. The public has a right to know the character of people who are in powerful positions.

Another neighbor (not naked man) used to tell me that Republicans were the 'adults' and that anyone who wasn't a Democrat when they were young had no heart and anyone who wasn't a Republican as an adult had no brain. What I am seeing is that Republicans are perfectly willing to lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate to win. Does that also occur on the left? Sure, but I have not seen evidence of it to the same degree as I have with McConnell, Trump, and others. Not allowing President Obama his Supreme Court nomination to even have a hearing was not 'adult' behavior. It was not the the behavior of good & honest people. Not having a thorough investigation of Christina Ford (and other's) claims was not decent behavior. Trump (et al) belittling women who have been through a traumatic incident is not decent behavior. Voter suppression, hacking, closing polling places in Democratic districts is not honest behavior.

A quote I read recently, "When winning becomes more important than the law, more important than ethics, more important than respecting the rights of your opponents — it's no longer about winning, it's about power. It's the essence of corruption. " ~ David Garrold

I agree.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

When it comes down to it, there are only two feasible possibilities. One is that Dr. Blasey Ford is willingly lying as part of this hoax that Mr. Trump finally out and out called it today. Or she is telling the truth. This idea that is mistaken about who it was who assaulted her is not credible for a multitude of reasons. First of all, as the article that I posted above describes, the one thing that would be ingrained in her memory would be the person who committed the assault. This is not a case of mistaken identity that we see sometimes, in which a witness or victim mistakenly identifies a stranger as the person who committed the crime. Contrary to Kavanaugh's testimony, he and Mark Judge was well-known to her in those days as they traveled in the same social circles, and she even dated one of his close friends for a time. Moreover, there is a declaration under oath submitted by Keith Koegler, a close friend of hers who himself is a licensed attorney saying that she specifically identified Kavanaugh as the person who assaulted him before he was nominated to the high court, and that years before that she had told him that the person who assaulted her was a federal judge (as an aside, Mr. Avenatti should read this declaration so that he can see how a declaration should be properly drafted). He also stated that he had and could provide to the FBI a copy of the email chain in which they discussed this So it this is a hoax, either it was one that was started with amazing prescience, or Mr. Koegler, is a part of the hoax willing to fabricate evidence (which would be easily proved if it were true). Just as importantly, anyone objectively looking at the facts of Mr. Kavanaugh's high school and college years would conclude that it was entirely possible that he could have committed this act. He himself described himself and his group of friends as loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us, in a note signed as "Bart" all put confirming that the damning description in Mark Judge's book of the actions of "Bart O'Kavanaugh" was about him. He himself included extremely demeaning comments about young women in his yearbook and even in that note that suggested that he looked at them as sexual objects. Many people who knew him well in his high school and college days described him as drinking to the point of being aggressive and to the point of unconsciousness. It turns out that one of the primary people who contradicts that picture of him at Yale, former NBA player and failed GOP candidate Chris Dudley, was arrested in a bar fight in which Kavanaugh was also accused of assaultive behavior.

Do we know the truth? Of course not. But to say that there is no evidence in support of Dr. Blasey Ford's accusation is simply untrue, and itself is a partisan act. There is abundant evidence supporting her accusations, most of which was ignored not only be the GOP Senate caucus (and Mr. Manchin) but also the FBI, acting under orders by the GOP Senate leadership and the White House.

[Faramond]

This to me is the most remarkable (and disturbing) part of the whole situation to me.

The junk science Republicans used to undermine Ford and help save Kavanaugh

The only junk here is the contents of this partisan article pretending to be scientific analysis. There are many studies that have shown the unreliability of memory.

Here is a much better and non-partisan examination of the issue:

https://quillette.com/2018/10/04/on-the ... -evidence/

Though I am sure most here will consider this partisan because it does not lead to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is guilty.

The truth is that it is a mistake to provide theories about "what really happened". Kavanaugh has not been proven guilty by any reasonable standard of evidence. All of Ford's named witnesses either can't back up her account or even say they don't even know Kavanaugh. The burden of proof, no matter if the standard is reasonable doubt or something far less, is still always on the "prosecution", not on the accused. People ask "why would she lie?" This is irrelevant. It is not up to the "defense" to answer this question. The truth is people do lie and often we never really know why, or we can only guess. I understand why a politician feels the need to create a narrative about what Ford has done, but the truth is the only thing that needs to be said is that the evidence is just not there to say that Kavanaugh is guilty.

I am very disappointed in the level of partisanship and outright lunacy I'm seeing on this board. Civility restrains me from naming these posters. I really appreciate the fairmindedness of Cerin in particular and a few others.

[Faramond]

But to say that there is no evidence in support of Dr. Blasey Ford's accusation is simply untrue, and itself is a partisan act.

I look at the facts, including the unreliability of memory and the lack of any witnesses. You spin and grasp at whatever you can to avert, in your own words, a "disaster".

I think this shows how much value your despicable accusation has.

I fear for the future of this country when so many are so ready to throw out standards of evidence and due process for a little bit of political gain.

[elengil]

but the truth is the only thing that needs to be said is that the evidence is just not there to say that Kavanaugh is guilty.

I am very disappointed in the level of partisanship and outright lunacy I'm seeing on this board. Civility restrains me from naming these posters. I really appreciate the fairmindedness of Cerin in particular and a few others.

Again, it's a shame Republicans were less concerned about innocent until proven guilty with evidence when they were chanting "Lock Her Up." That makes the Republican insistence that it applies in this case less about a standard of fairness upheld by the party and more about just applying it to their own benefit - i.e. partisan as hell.

[yovargas]

Here is a much better and non-partisan examination of the issue:

https://quillette.com/2018/10/...nd-the ... -evidence/

That is a very thoughtfully written article. It is unsatisfying, in that it cannot answer how we should proceed with these difficult situations, but it is fair. Thanks for sharing it.

[RoseMorninStar]

If someone one personally knew in High School had punched, bullied, otherwise hurt you, you would not 'mis-remember' who did it even many years later unless one had dementia. People don't forget those kind of things.

[IdylleSeethes]

RoseMorninStar,

I agree with Mr. Garrold. The last 2 weeks were a travesty of government. Trumpeting unsupported accusations and whining about unfairness every time Democrats were allowed to have it their way, purely for political theater, was contemptible.

I will let the WP correct your misunderstanding of presidential election year appointments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 7dbe1fd401

What wasn't adult was Schumer's whining.

I hope no one is ever again treated like Associate Justice Kavanaugh. Conservatives acknowledged that Clinton deserved to have Ginsburg confirmed, in spite of the political chasm between a sizable part of of the country and the nominee. I think it was wrong for Republicans to not support Obama's nominees. They were confirmed handily with some Republican support, but not enough to recognize that Obama had won the privilege of making the appointments.

Rumors and other unsupported accusations should never be enough to derail any presidential nomination.

I pointed out in my earlier post that I and apparently most Americans agreed with Kavanaugh's characterization of the Democrat's demonstration of the politics of personal destruction.

Voronwë

There is no evidence to support the accusation of attempted rape. All of the witnesses offered by the accuser declined to support her. There may be evidence of other behavior that you don't like, but that is not why Dr. Ford was at the hearing. Grasping at straws? It's done. Let it go.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

All of the witnesses offered by the accuser declined to support her.

That's not accurate. Dr. Blasey Ford's friend, Leland Keyser, said that while she doesn't recall the specific party in question (not surprising that she would not recall an event decades ago at which nothing happened that she was aware of at the time that was particularly remarkable) but that she believe that Dr. Blasey Ford was telling the truth and that Judge Kavanaugh did assault her.

It is accurate to say that there is no direct evidence corroborating Dr. Blasey Ford's testimony (which itself is evidence). It is not accurate to say that there is no circumstantial evidence corroborating her testimony. Most evidence is circumstantial, particularly in cases like this. Do I think there is enough evidence to convict Judge Kavanaugh beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law? Probably not, although I would need to see a more detailed investigation that what was done. Do I think that there is enough evidence that reasonable people could believe that it is more likely than not that Judge Kavanaugh did assault Dr. Blasey Ford? Yes I do, and frankly, insults like "outright lunacy" and "travesty of government" don't impress me much at the fairmindness of those throwing out those terms.


The final count of law professors - a mix of liberal and conservative - signing the letter opposing Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, was over 2400. To say this is unprecedented would be the understatement of the century

[yovargas]

I will let the WP correct your misunderstanding of presidential election year appointments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 7dbe1fd401

Sorry, but I find that article deeply disingenuous. Yes, we know that this is a midterm and not a presidential election. But McConnell's argument was not based on it being a presidential election. His own words:

“The American people are in the middle of choosing who the next president is going to be. And that next president ought to have this appointment, which will affect the Supreme Court, for probably a quarter of a century.”

Well, guess what, the American people are in the middle of choosing who the next Congress is going to be, and that Congress has a say on who will be on the Supreme Court for probably a quarter century. The argument he was making - which is in my opinion an utterly absurd argument - should apply just as well to a presidential election as to a congressional election. Or it should if the argument was based on honest principle and not on toxic partisan gamesmanship.


Also, as a general note, regardless of whether or not Ford had any evidence, it would be nice if everyone, all parties, would at least show a bare minimum of compassion and empathy for a woman who went in front of the entire nation to relive a painfully traumatic event in her life at great personal cost. Even if you believe that her testimony is not good enough reason to discredit Kavanaugh, that is not a good reason to treat her and her trauma as irrelevant and meaningless. Please try to understand that by belittling Ford, millions of victims who are afraid to come forward with their stories also feel belittled.