Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 13 2019 22:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: 1: Ford was highly credible. 2: Kavanaugh was not. He clearly lied about his drinking past (I find it extremely unlikely that someone could drink like he was drinking - and classmates attested it was a lot more than he himself claimed without ever being blackout drunk), lied about devil's triangle, pretended to be some type of choir boy which he clearly was not. I did not think the allegation itself was disqualifying, but I thought his behavior during the hearing was.
To clarify; alcohol is a very strong drug, yet one we as society have encouraged the use of. To me, that means it is inevitable that some young people are going to use too much of it and do stupid shit because of it. While use of alcohol is not a viable legal defense for crimes done, I think it is a very viable character-defense when describing acts 30+ years in the past. All you need to do is make a statement such as 'While I do not remember the behavior described by Ford and while I have a hard time believing that I could act in such a manner, it is true that I, as a young boy, was involved in excessive drinking with some friends and classmates, and it did happen on occasion that I drank beyond memory, and it did happen that I realized I had acted in a way my sober mind would find incomprehensible and indefensible. And consequentially, I have for the past 29+ years been conscious never to get as drunk as I used to get in my college years. While Ford describes vile behavior on my behalf, I believe it to be exaggerated, yet, for what there is of truth to it, I am deeply sorry, and I wish I had known about it earlier. I believe in atoning for my sins and using them as a springboard for personal betterment, and in some significant ways, I no longer identify with the man I was in college.'
Instead we get 'We and I liked beer and I still like beer'-entitled angry fratboy whose behavior was, while understandable, extremely unimpressive. And like GH says, that type of behavior in a regular job interview, be it for a fkn warehouse position, would be disqualifying to most job interviewers. (I mean, you also don't have to defend yourself from sexual allegations during most regular job interviews, so obviously not really comparable, but he still lost his cool. A supreme court justice should be exceptionally level-headed. )
Now, you can still argue that there's an element of Kavanaugh being treated unfairly. That is because all democrats feel that republicans stole a spot on the SC. I mean, it was Gorsuch taking that spot - but it still laid the foundation for the next republican nominee (any next nominees until balance is restored or a progressive lead is taken, honestly) to be put under such scrutiny that the entire process ends up delayed, with that as an explicit goal. Democrats must do this. But then someone like Gorsuch still ends up getting confirmed without all that big hubbub (yes I know there was posturing, but people always knew he was going to get confirmed) because he hasn't done or said a bunch of disqualifying shit. It's my understanding that Trump had a list of 25 candidates and he picked Kavanaugh semi-randomly from that list (well, this is basically what Trump said prior to picking him), and in that case, why not just go for the next one? To me, picking him is essentially a self-indictment - saying you don't have anyone better than him? Like, really?
I wouldn't be surprised if kavanaugh was more or less under orders from the White House to be defiant and combative at the hearing. That is what was reported at the time. It's how trump wants his subordinates to be with the press. Keep in mind trumps presidency is an exercise in him watching TV coverage related to himself.
Which would be even worse than Kavanaugh simply being contemptuous.
On July 13 2019 22:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:<Snip> It's my understanding that Trump had a list of 25 candidates and he picked Kavanaugh semi-randomly from that list (well, this is basically what Trump said prior to picking him), and in that case, why not just go for the next one? To me, picking him is essentially a self-indictment - saying you don't have anyone better than him? Like, really?
Because more qualified people would be less willing to pledge loyalty to Trump and more likely to respect the supposed impartial position of the Supreme Court.
Trump doesn't want the most qualified person on the SC, he wants a lapdog. And he got it.
On July 13 2019 13:10 KwarK wrote: Well-regarded and admired for his conduct by whom?
I'm sorry you didn't keep up while the confirmation was ongoing.
That's not an answer to Kwark's question. The onus is on you to provide proof to your statement. If there was widespread support for Kavanaugh, and he was as widely regarded as you claim, it'd be trivially easy to provide an example of this support. Not only would doing so make your argument stronger, but it would improve the tone of the thread and be more productive than simply saying a condescending remark.
On July 13 2019 22:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: Instead we get 'We and I liked beer and I still like beer'-entitled angry fratboy whose behavior was, while understandable, extremely unimpressive. And like GH says, that type of behavior in a regular job interview, be it for a fkn warehouse position, would be disqualifying to most job interviewers. (I mean, you also don't have to defend yourself from sexual allegations during most regular job interviews, so obviously not really comparable, but he still lost his cool. A supreme court justice should be exceptionally level-headed. )
Precisely. He was frequently stand-offish and deliberately obtuse for no apparent reason other than to be a tool.
This exchange with Kamala Harris comes to mind. Kavanaugh could have simply answered "Not that I'm aware of" and moved on but instead he argued for multiple minutes, dodged the question repeatedly, and tried to shift the burden of answering a question onto Harris. This type of belligerent behaviour is not only unbecoming of someone who is being supposed to be able to make level-headed judgments in difficult situations, but also suggests that he likely didn't want to answer the question truthfully. This wasn't the only time he acted like this. He did so throughout the hearing.
On July 13 2019 12:32 Introvert wrote: lol Kavanaugh was one of the most well-regarded and admired federal judges, for his conduct, as well as his intellect and thoroughness. He deserved it in the sense that he was as well qualified as could be and the allegations against him were so flimsy and mismanaged that it would have been wrong to deny him the seat for that reason.
And this is coming from someone whodoesnt have high hopes for him as a conservative.
Lots of people lose job opportunities far less prestigious and profound for far less regardless of their qualifications lol.
Don't think I've had a job where I could have behaved a fraction as obnoxious as he did during the screening process and I've had some jobs with extremely low expectations.
It's not a criminal case, the allegations were (and his reaction) was more than enough to reasonably disqualify him from the Supreme Court, crocodile tears notwithstanding.
how many people are laughably accused of gang rape and have US senators act like it's a serious allegation? (btw I hope everyone who bought that story still feels stinging embarrassment.)
no, you wont find me, or almost anyone on the right, saying that his behavior was out of place. For him to take it in a solemn manner would require that his interviewers do the same.
No, that's not how job interviews/screening work. They can treat you however they want and if you for a moment display behavior they consider undesirable you're gone.
That's before we even get to the countless people rejected for jobs because of their names.
It's a critically important role that requires a temperament better than what would would get you rejected from McDonalds. As far as the allegations go, you're free to interpret them as you wish and everyone else the same in the sense that a civil jury can. They just need to be mostly convinced he was sceevy, not that he's a rapist to reject him for the Supreme Court as citizens.
there is no doubt that if he had conducted himself the way you describe he would have been toast. We know that this was not a normal job interview. and at any rate he was morally justified in his anger, at least to me.
Thomas made it, if he had acted like Kavanaugh he would have been toast.
You're right it's more important than a typical interview with higher standards. That he was so easily thrown into such obnoxious behavior would prevent him from having qualified to be a conflict manager (a job for children) on the playground at my local school so it's well below the expectations I would have for a SCJ.
So remember all of the talk about how the Trump Organization was in big trouble criminally after Cohen was flipped? Turns out there's about as much there as there was with the Russia collusion theories. CNN is reporting that the investigation is wrapping up and that no charges are going to be brought. Yet another example of wildly exaggerated, partisan reporting getting people riled up over nothing.
A federal investigation into whether Trump Organization executives violated campaign-finance laws appears to be wrapping up without charges being filed, according to people familiar with the matter.
For months, federal prosecutors in New York have examined whether company officials broke the law, including in their effort to reimburse Michael Cohen for hush-money payments he made to women alleging affairs with his former boss, President Donald Trump.
In recent weeks, however, their investigation has quieted, the people familiar with the inquiry said, and prosecutors now don't appear poised to charge any Trump Organization executives in the probe that stemmed from the case against Cohen.
Introvert: Kavanaugh was extremely well regarded. KwarK: What about all those people criticizing his conduct. Introvert: I said was, not is, so technically I could have meant he used to be but isn’t now which somehow I think helps my argument not yours.
Introvert: Kavanaugh was extremely well regarded. KwarK: What about all those people criticizing his conduct. Introvert: Nobody cares about the 2,400 named law professors criticizing him. What really counts are the 0 people I named who think he’s great.
On July 13 2019 22:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: 1: Ford was highly credible. 2: Kavanaugh was not. He clearly lied about his drinking past (I find it extremely unlikely that someone could drink like he was drinking - and classmates attested it was a lot more than he himself claimed without ever being blackout drunk), lied about devil's triangle, pretended to be some type of choir boy which he clearly was not. I did not think the allegation itself was disqualifying, but I thought his behavior during the hearing was.
To clarify; alcohol is a very strong drug, yet one we as society have encouraged the use of. To me, that means it is inevitable that some young people are going to use too much of it and do stupid shit because of it. While use of alcohol is not a viable legal defense for crimes done, I think it is a very viable character-defense when describing acts 30+ years in the past. All you need to do is make a statement such as 'While I do not remember the behavior described by Ford and while I have a hard time believing that I could act in such a manner, it is true that I, as a young boy, was involved in excessive drinking with some friends and classmates, and it did happen on occasion that I drank beyond memory, and it did happen that I realized I had acted in a way my sober mind would find incomprehensible and indefensible. And consequentially, I have for the past 29+ years been conscious never to get as drunk as I used to get in my college years. While Ford describes vile behavior on my behalf, I believe it to be exaggerated, yet, for what there is of truth to it, I am deeply sorry, and I wish I had known about it earlier. I believe in atoning for my sins and using them as a springboard for personal betterment, and in some significant ways, I no longer identify with the man I was in college.'
Instead we get 'We and I liked beer and I still like beer'-entitled angry fratboy whose behavior was, while understandable, extremely unimpressive. And like GH says, that type of behavior in a regular job interview, be it for a fkn warehouse position, would be disqualifying to most job interviewers. (I mean, you also don't have to defend yourself from sexual allegations during most regular job interviews, so obviously not really comparable, but he still lost his cool. A supreme court justice should be exceptionally level-headed. )
Now, you can still argue that there's an element of Kavanaugh being treated unfairly. That is because all democrats feel that republicans stole a spot on the SC. I mean, it was Gorsuch taking that spot - but it still laid the foundation for the next republican nominee (any next nominees until balance is restored or a progressive lead is taken, honestly) to be put under such scrutiny that the entire process ends up delayed, with that as an explicit goal. Democrats must do this. But then someone like Gorsuch still ends up getting confirmed without all that big hubbub (yes I know there was posturing, but people always knew he was going to get confirmed) because he hasn't done or said a bunch of disqualifying shit. It's my understanding that Trump had a list of 25 candidates and he picked Kavanaugh semi-randomly from that list (well, this is basically what Trump said prior to picking him), and in that case, why not just go for the next one? To me, picking him is essentially a self-indictment - saying you don't have anyone better than him? Like, really?
It’s just amazing to me how two people can look at the same thing and come to almost totally opposite conclusions. I guess this is one of the values of this thread, to hear from people of different worldviews and know more about what guides them to their opinions.
In this era of false news and outright partisanship is it really suprising? It's not so much as looking at the same thing as not looking at all for one side. That there can be two sides do not make both sides equal and true, or false or should be held in regard.
You guys are conflating a bunch of things. When I talked about a laughable story, I explicitly referred to the rape gang story. Ford's story was actually plausible on its own, the problem was that there was no corroborating evidence at all. Her own friend who was supposed to be at the party didnt even k ow what she was talking about. Her boyfriend at the time had no idea. We never found out whose house it was. She doesnt know what she did before or after, etc, etc..
As to his reputation before, I am again sorry that despite a fact this was a story for months, and I posted about it at the time, no one remembers it.
On July 14 2019 01:13 KwarK wrote: Introvert: Kavanaugh was extremely well regarded. KwarK: What about all those people criticizing his conduct. Introvert: I said was, not is, so technically I could have meant he used to be but isn’t now which somehow I think helps my argument not yours.
Introvert: Kavanaugh was extremely well regarded. KwarK: What about all those people criticizing his conduct. Introvert: Nobody cares about the 2,400 named law professors criticizing him. What really counts are the 0 people I named who think he’s great.
I think maybe you had a little too much beer.
Dude, the first example you gave before you edited in more was totally wrong. you left that part out.
And yes, no one cares about the law professors.
And how can we see that I'm probably right? For his entire time on the bench, both before and after his confirmation, there ha not been a single indication that he has a temper problem. And he's been a judge for over 15 years I think.
I allow that some might not like the way he behaved, but is hardly open and shut, and we can view is history in its entirety to support the conclusion that his temperment is fine.
And just for you Kwark, here is a story on the ABA's rating of him, which at one time was downgraded and then unanimously re-upgraded to well-qualified later.
But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement. The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”
“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’” A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the courtroom. The reviews weren’t all bad.
In the end, the ABA committee weighed Kavanaugh’s “solid reputation for integrity, intellectual capacity, and writing and analytical ability” against “concern over whether this nominee is so insulated that he will be unable to judge fairly in the future.” In a split vote, it downgraded the rating of the nominee to simply “qualified” — meaning he met the ABA’s standards to become a judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.
****
In his 12 years on the court, he apparently resolved the ABA’s concerns about his temperament. Kavanaugh cited the bar association’s new unanimous “well qualified” rating for his nomination to the Supreme Court in his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday — an angry, tearful defense against sexual allegations, in which he suggested “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” had inspired his accusers.
When then-candidate Donald Trump released his first two lists of potential Supreme Court nominees in May and September of 2016, the omission of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit drew comment. Kavanaugh had served for 10 years on a bench known as a springboard to the Supreme Court. With his impeccable academic credentials and sterling reputation in conservative political and legal circles, he seemed like an obvious choice. And his name was eventually added to the roster of possible nominees, on November 17, 2017.
in testimony before the senate (before Kavanaugh's bglow up) the head of the ABA standing committee said “We concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standards for appointment to the court,"
if you guys really want more on his pre-confirmation reputation then I can provide more. but one of the reason's trump liked him was that he had all the right qualifications and was told that Kavanaugh would be the easiest to confirm, in part based on those qualifications.
edit:
To be very clear, you can be critical of his conduct in front of the committee during the Ford affair, I disagree with that criticism, but that's fine. But his entire judicial career before hand, from first sitting down to his hearings before the Senate in the summer of 2018, were marked by exactly the qualities people are saying he lacked, based on an extremely unusual circumstance. On balance, over the course of years, he was known to possess all these attributes that you guys are now questioning.
It seems today Donald was in a bad mood, and went a little bit unhinged with the birtherism/racism comments, and failed pretty badly, as he asked several american women (some "more" american than him) to... go back to their country.
Most likely referring to Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and AOC. Let me get this straight :
- Omar was born in Somalia and is a good exemple of integration : works, speaks english, progressed the social ladder. His comments could apply in her case maybe, as the diaspora could work towards fixing broken governments. Though after dozens of years of civil war, its KINDA HARD and still a very insensitive piece to say. - Rachida Tlaib was born in Detroit from Palestinian parents. The US *is* her country, as much as Trump's children's or his father's. Her origins do not really have an independant government to fix, as the US doesn't recognize Palestine as a state, which would be a first step towards fixing it. So, bullshit here. - AOC was born in Bronx, her father was born in Bronx from a Puerto Rican family, which IS an american territory, so she is even MORE american than Donald Trump. And Puerto Rico does not get representation in Congress.
Buuut, they are not white, and their names sound not white (nor eastern european, which looked sexy, as he married several). What a (selectively) racist piece of shit.
(And I'm not even starting on evaluating if the US government has been broken nonfunctional and/or corrupted itself, these past two decades :-D)
On July 14 2019 23:24 Simberto wrote: We should still not constantly talk about stupid shit Trump says.
If you were surrounded by people who parrot that stupid shit as truth on a daily basis, you might think differently.
Hes having a particularly stupid morning too. Even if they were actually immigrants, his tweets still wouldn't make sense. It's at the level of a playground insult, quite literally. Same thing with his nickname for Buttigieg. We're talking about the mental operations of a child on a playground.
On July 14 2019 01:12 xDaunt wrote: So remember all of the talk about how the Trump Organization was in big trouble criminally after Cohen was flipped? Turns out there's about as much there as there was with the Russia collusion theories. CNN is reporting that the investigation is wrapping up and that no charges are going to be brought. Yet another example of wildly exaggerated, partisan reporting getting people riled up over nothing.
A federal investigation into whether Trump Organization executives violated campaign-finance laws appears to be wrapping up without charges being filed, according to people familiar with the matter.
For months, federal prosecutors in New York have examined whether company officials broke the law, including in their effort to reimburse Michael Cohen for hush-money payments he made to women alleging affairs with his former boss, President Donald Trump.
In recent weeks, however, their investigation has quieted, the people familiar with the inquiry said, and prosecutors now don't appear poised to charge any Trump Organization executives in the probe that stemmed from the case against Cohen.
The state authorities may still be able to get him for fraud of various stripes. Charity self dealing, tax evasion, lying to lenders. All documented and pretty close to irrefutable. The only defense is to say it's like Jay walking or everyone does it.
Also Pretty sure Barr involved himself in the federal investigations.
On July 14 2019 01:12 xDaunt wrote: So remember all of the talk about how the Trump Organization was in big trouble criminally after Cohen was flipped? Turns out there's about as much there as there was with the Russia collusion theories. CNN is reporting that the investigation is wrapping up and that no charges are going to be brought. Yet another example of wildly exaggerated, partisan reporting getting people riled up over nothing.
A federal investigation into whether Trump Organization executives violated campaign-finance laws appears to be wrapping up without charges being filed, according to people familiar with the matter.
For months, federal prosecutors in New York have examined whether company officials broke the law, including in their effort to reimburse Michael Cohen for hush-money payments he made to women alleging affairs with his former boss, President Donald Trump.
In recent weeks, however, their investigation has quieted, the people familiar with the inquiry said, and prosecutors now don't appear poised to charge any Trump Organization executives in the probe that stemmed from the case against Cohen.
The state authorities may still be able to get him for fraud of various stripes. Charity self dealing, tax evasion, lying to lenders. All documented and pretty close to irrefutable. The only defense is to say it's like Jay walking or everyone does it.
Also Pretty sure Barr involved himself in the federal investigations.
Regardless of how little has been said about Barr’s involvement in lower investigations, the timing of Barr’s entrance coinciding with the winding down of numerous investigations is extremely suspicious (and is exactly what discretionary recusal is intended to address).
On July 14 2019 02:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote: In this era of false news and outright partisanship is it really suprising? It's not so much as looking at the same thing as not looking at all for one side. That there can be two sides do not make both sides equal and true, or false or should be held in regard.
Yes exactly. There has been a lot of debate about how news organizations are handling the "both sides" thing when it comes to topics like climate change. The problem is that their attempts to appear balanced have actually ended up misconstruing the realities of issues. Does it make sense to give equal voice to the one scientist out of 100 that does not agree on man-made climate change, or give opposing views from someone not properly informed on the topic? The "climate debate" isn't actually a debate in the way a lot of media sources claim it is. It's a consensus at this point.
It's a weird thing we see a lot in news in North America. We see the same thing in Canada. They had a news story a few months back here about Alberta forest fires and climate change. After talking with a climate scientist who confirmed that climate change would make the fires worse because it would get drier and hotter, they cut to some old dude at a gas station claiming the fires were normal and climate change wasn't happening. What did they hope to accomplish with this? I see the New York Times, and to a lesser extend, the Washington Post, doing this type of stuff more and more frequently. It's reasonable to do for political policy articles for example, but it makes no sense in cases where the article is about topics based around facts with verifiable data.
EPT
