|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 17 2018 06:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's honestly fairly likely that a) woman's account is pretty much completely accurate and b) kavanaugh's denial is genuine because he doesn't remember. Not saying that makes it okay or excuses it, but.. if I'm ranking outrageous sexual behavior revealed post-metoo then this ends up pretty low on my list. (reasons; he was 17 and that was 30 years ago, he was stumbling drunk, one time happening unless anybody else comes forward.)
Can't really blame conservatives for not jumping ship, cuz could see myself support a politician that I otherwise agreed with if this was a singular example of the worst behavior they displayed during their high school years and if that was more than 30 years ago. I mean, repentance is a requirement for forgiveness, so normally it'd require a 'I behaved in an unforgivable manner for which I am extremely sorry but it was a long time ago and I am a different man today' type of statement - but her account makes it believable that he genuinely does not remember, and I can't expect people to apologize for things they don't know that they did. I think sexual allegations of this sort are incredibly damning if there's a pattern to them, but much less so if they are singular stories.
I also get the 'just another example of a powerful man getting away with being a horrible person' perspective and I don't disagree with that either.. And I obviously don't want to see him confirmed as a supreme court justice, and I get fighting every battle possible to delay or hinder that from happening. But I get why this doesn't sway the minds of people who supported him before this.
That's the worst part. If this was about justice being done, this is the worst way to do it.
meanwhile, there are those who say that maybe what happened wasn't exactly as she recalls, and maybe their age lessens this a bit ("dumb teenagers"). But I am not going to consider that until we can say that this actually took place. it would somewhat unfair to Kavanaugh, in my estimation, to give up that lightly.
|
On September 17 2018 06:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:07 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 06:02 NewSunshine wrote:On September 17 2018 05:53 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility." And what do you think we are doing right now? She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them. On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny. That would be more true if we knew this months ago. Months ago Kavanaugh's name wasn't even a fart on the wind. That's how fast this thing has been moving. Do we really think he deserves this much benefit of the doubt? This isn't a case where you go "well, there's no good reason not to go full speed here". It's the Supreme Court. That should be reason enough. If we can't take the time to do it right, don't do it at all. When you catch wind that your candidate is sketchy AF, you slow the hell down and you start asking questions. You don't double down and speed things up even more. The time from his nomination to the scheduled vote is about average, from what I remember. The high stakes make this bad both ways, you get that right? That one party has very good reason to try and stall this past the midterms if at all possible? The average nominee isn’t accused of attempted rape. They can delay the vote for an investigation. Now, mind you, they won’t. They don’t care of the attempted rape happened or not. And judging by you posting neither do you.
I care deeply, we are debating the event. You have decided it happened. I have not. I also have not decided that it didn't happen.
On September 17 2018 06:18 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 05:53 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility." And what do you think we are doing right now? She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them. On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny. That would be more true if we knew this months ago. It doesn't count as "ramming through" right now. Based on what you are saying it would seem that, in your mind, even if she came forward she could never be judged to be credible. Your standards are apparently that she should remember exactly where or when it happened, and we should hear from everyone else who was present. Those things were never likely, and if anything they lean in favor of delaying the vote until this matter is investigated, so that we can judge her credibility.
I thought Roy Moore's accusers were credible. Seriously, I have to take it or leave it? What kind of standard is that? Do we have a pattern of behavior? We'll see. Do we have other witnesses? Not by her own account. Do we have a record of her telling anyone else? Only her husband, in 2012 who says he "recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court."
But I'm glad everyone is jumping right past all the things that make this suspect, and just pretend they don't exist. I know everyone can see them, and no one even bothers to address them.
|
Norway28706 Posts
Seems unlikely that she made up this story to her therapist or husband 6 years before he's nominated. Like, I'm not gonna say that it definitely happened exactly like she said it would, but I find it very unlikely that it's a full fabrication.
|
On September 17 2018 06:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Seems unlikely that she made up this story to her therapist 6 years before he's nominated. Like, I'm not gonna say that it definitely happened exactly like she said it would, but I find it very unlikely that it's a full fabrication.
I'm sure something happened, but with who?
|
5930 Posts
On September 17 2018 06:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Seems unlikely that she made up this story to her therapist 6 years before he's nominated. Like, I'm not gonna say that it definitely happened exactly like she said it would, but I find it very unlikely that it's a full fabrication. I'm sure something happened, but with who?
You can find that out with an investigation. That’s the whole point of investigations.
What I don’t get is that Republicans could have pushed any conservative judge and Red State Dems wouldn’t have put up much of a resistance like in the case of Gorsuch. Let’s be honest here, they play both sides hard.
This dude had issues from the get go that weren’t opinion related. Everyone knew that, Republicans still went for it for whatever reason. As far as I know, McConnell didn’t want him being nominated for this reason and he’s no dummy.
|
So, how long will it take for the FBI to investigate this and reach a conclusion on what happened?
|
On September 17 2018 06:28 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:24 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 06:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Seems unlikely that she made up this story to her therapist 6 years before he's nominated. Like, I'm not gonna say that it definitely happened exactly like she said it would, but I find it very unlikely that it's a full fabrication. I'm sure something happened, but with who? You can find that out with an investigation. That’s the whole point of investigations. What I don’t get is that Republicans could have pushed any conservative judge and Red State Dems wouldn’t have put up much of a resistance like in the case of Gorsuch. Let’s be honest here, they play both sides hard. This dude had issues from the get go that weren’t opinion related. Everyone knew that, Republicans still went for it for whatever reason. As far as I know, McConnell didn’t want him being nominated for this reason and he’s no dummy.
if they wanted this investigated for real we would have found out about it weeks ago. They don't care about the truth as much as they do about putting off the vote and being seen as resisters.
You underestimate the Democrats. Gorsuch got through because it was the Scalia seat and didn't change the Court too much. This is a swing vote seat with impact. Any nominee would have level 11 theatrics, just the nature of them would change. The only issue with Kavanaugh was the documents, but that was just because they requested more than anyone would ever agree to release. If it wasn't that it would be something else.
|
United States43219 Posts
On September 17 2018 06:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Seems unlikely that she made up this story to her therapist 6 years before he's nominated. Like, I'm not gonna say that it definitely happened exactly like she said it would, but I find it very unlikely that it's a full fabrication. I'm sure something happened, but with who?
Surely there is only so many high ranking people in Washington a given woman went to parties with as a girl.
|
5930 Posts
I don’t think I underestimate the Democrats. You have one reportedly very vulnerable and in a state that wants Kavanaugh to be on the surpreme court (North Dakota).
Is Heitkamp going to torpedo her seat in a situation where the Republicans have the majority to pass? I really, really doubt it. The arithmetic doesn’t work out unless others like Collins get cold feet.
|
On September 17 2018 06:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:24 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 06:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Seems unlikely that she made up this story to her therapist 6 years before he's nominated. Like, I'm not gonna say that it definitely happened exactly like she said it would, but I find it very unlikely that it's a full fabrication. I'm sure something happened, but with who? Surely there is only so many high ranking people in Washington a given woman went to parties with as a girl.
not if you live in the right area. I mean the other person (Judge) is a DC writer and who knows what the other two people do.
Listen, I don't know what happened. Her story has credible elements. It also has issues. Everyone should acknowledge the issues, because the people to whom she gave the information didn't do anything with it. So they thought it had credibility problems. Either that, or they were waiting intentionally, or both. I don't know how a smart person like her thinks she can send a letter to a Senator on the committee, ask that NO information be given about her, and expect it to matter. It wasn't until the media came hunting, through what must be leaks, that she said something.
|
United States43219 Posts
"Maybe it was another high ranking man in Washington and she's just confused" is the weirdest of all takes on this for me. I'd be happier with "fake news" or "she's a deep state agent". Either it happened or it didn't happen. She either fabricated it for some kind of political motive or it's true. The suggestion that it happened, but there's also some kind of mistaken identities involved feels like the compromise 9/11 theory where terrorists took down one tower and Bush took down the other. It's taking a middle ground at the expense of reason.
|
On September 17 2018 06:54 KwarK wrote:
"Maybe it was another high ranking man in Washington and she's just confused" is the weirdest of all takes on this for me. I'd be happier with "fake news" or "she's a deep state agent". Either it happened or it didn't happen. She either fabricated it for some kind of political motive or it's true. The suggestion that it happened, but there's also some kind of mistaken identities involved feels like the compromise 9/11 theory where terrorists took down one tower and Bush took down the other. It's taking a middle ground at the expense of reason.
She also said she doesn't know where or when this happened, which is a very large thing people are ignoring. Her memory on this is not unimpeachable.
I will reiterate. I don't know with 100% certainty, but nor does anyone else.
|
On September 17 2018 06:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:54 KwarK wrote:
"Maybe it was another high ranking man in Washington and she's just confused" is the weirdest of all takes on this for me. I'd be happier with "fake news" or "she's a deep state agent". Either it happened or it didn't happen. She either fabricated it for some kind of political motive or it's true. The suggestion that it happened, but there's also some kind of mistaken identities involved feels like the compromise 9/11 theory where terrorists took down one tower and Bush took down the other. It's taking a middle ground at the expense of reason. She also said she doesn't know where or when this happened, which is a very large thing people are ignoring. Her memory on this is not unimpeachable. I will reiterate. I don't know with 100% certainty, but nor does anyone else. And everyone else is going 'lets fine out before we confirm him to the highest judiciary position, for life" while your going "meh, why bother, lets go".
As for the stalling. Didn't we have this conversation a little while ago where it was decided that its really important to have an election before a Supreme Court nomination so that the people can speak? I guess that only applies when the Democrats would get to pick.
Reap what you sowed.
|
On September 17 2018 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:57 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 06:54 KwarK wrote:
"Maybe it was another high ranking man in Washington and she's just confused" is the weirdest of all takes on this for me. I'd be happier with "fake news" or "she's a deep state agent". Either it happened or it didn't happen. She either fabricated it for some kind of political motive or it's true. The suggestion that it happened, but there's also some kind of mistaken identities involved feels like the compromise 9/11 theory where terrorists took down one tower and Bush took down the other. It's taking a middle ground at the expense of reason. She also said she doesn't know where or when this happened, which is a very large thing people are ignoring. Her memory on this is not unimpeachable. I will reiterate. I don't know with 100% certainty, but nor does anyone else. And everyone else is going 'lets fine out before we confirm him to the highest judiciary position, for life" while your going "meh, why bother, lets go". As for the stalling. Didn't we have this conversation a little while ago where it was decided that its really important to have an election before a Supreme Court nomination so that the people can speak? I guess that only applies when the Democrats would get to pick. Reap what you sowed.
I am not being nearly as cavalier as that. I think this was not handled appropriately and now 35 year old accusations almost impossible to prove brought out at the very last second are serious matters and stink to the high heavens, either allowing a vote to maybe be delayed past an election or permanently smearing a new justice, which will have great rhetorical value in the future.
On that last point, I will redirect you to two article I've linked before:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-rejections-politics-has-lot-do-it/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/it-doesnt-matter-garland-didnt-get-hearing/
|
On September 17 2018 06:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:16 Plansix wrote:On September 17 2018 06:07 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 06:02 NewSunshine wrote:On September 17 2018 05:53 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility." And what do you think we are doing right now? She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them. On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny. That would be more true if we knew this months ago. Months ago Kavanaugh's name wasn't even a fart on the wind. That's how fast this thing has been moving. Do we really think he deserves this much benefit of the doubt? This isn't a case where you go "well, there's no good reason not to go full speed here". It's the Supreme Court. That should be reason enough. If we can't take the time to do it right, don't do it at all. When you catch wind that your candidate is sketchy AF, you slow the hell down and you start asking questions. You don't double down and speed things up even more. The time from his nomination to the scheduled vote is about average, from what I remember. The high stakes make this bad both ways, you get that right? That one party has very good reason to try and stall this past the midterms if at all possible? The average nominee isn’t accused of attempted rape. They can delay the vote for an investigation. Now, mind you, they won’t. They don’t care of the attempted rape happened or not. And judging by you posting neither do you. I care deeply, we are debating the event. You have decided it happened. I have not. I also have not decided that it didn't happen. Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:18 Doodsmack wrote:On September 17 2018 05:53 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility." And what do you think we are doing right now? She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them. On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny. That would be more true if we knew this months ago. It doesn't count as "ramming through" right now. Based on what you are saying it would seem that, in your mind, even if she came forward she could never be judged to be credible. Your standards are apparently that she should remember exactly where or when it happened, and we should hear from everyone else who was present. Those things were never likely, and if anything they lean in favor of delaying the vote until this matter is investigated, so that we can judge her credibility. I thought Roy Moore's accusers were credible. Seriously, I have to take it or leave it? What kind of standard is that? Do we have a pattern of behavior? We'll see. Do we have other witnesses? Not by her own account. Do we have a record of her telling anyone else? Only her husband, in 2012 who says he "recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court." But I'm glad everyone is jumping right past all the things that make this suspect, and just pretend they don't exist. I know everyone can see them, and no one even bothers to address them.
I haven’t decided it happened or not. I just don’t want him confirmed until an investigation of some form takes place. And once that is done, he will be confirmed because Republicans have the votes. There is no rush and better safe than sorry.
As for “we should have known months ago”, sure we should have. But we didn’t and we know now. So now it is time to deal with these accusations, not after he is confirmed for life.
|
United States43219 Posts
On September 17 2018 07:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On September 17 2018 06:57 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 06:54 KwarK wrote:
"Maybe it was another high ranking man in Washington and she's just confused" is the weirdest of all takes on this for me. I'd be happier with "fake news" or "she's a deep state agent". Either it happened or it didn't happen. She either fabricated it for some kind of political motive or it's true. The suggestion that it happened, but there's also some kind of mistaken identities involved feels like the compromise 9/11 theory where terrorists took down one tower and Bush took down the other. It's taking a middle ground at the expense of reason. She also said she doesn't know where or when this happened, which is a very large thing people are ignoring. Her memory on this is not unimpeachable. I will reiterate. I don't know with 100% certainty, but nor does anyone else. And everyone else is going 'lets fine out before we confirm him to the highest judiciary position, for life" while your going "meh, why bother, lets go". As for the stalling. Didn't we have this conversation a little while ago where it was decided that its really important to have an election before a Supreme Court nomination so that the people can speak? I guess that only applies when the Democrats would get to pick. Reap what you sowed. I am not being nearly as cavalier as that. I think this was not handled appropriately and now 35 year old accusations almost impossible to prove brought out at the very last second are serious matters and stink to the high heavens, either allowing a vote to maybe be delayed past an election or permanently smearing a new justice, which will have great rhetorical value in the future. On that last point, I will redirect you to two article I've linked before: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-rejections-politics-has-lot-do-it/https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/it-doesnt-matter-garland-didnt-get-hearing/ I read your articles.
"No hearing would have persuaded anyone of anything. The Senate wastes enough time on pointless charades as it is."
That's pretty damning for the state of democracy. It essentially reduces the legislative to nothing more than theatre to be played for tribal bases. The argument made was that the process of supreme court nominations is a charade and therefore it can be dispensed with without loss. Even if that is true that should not be something to be celebrated.
|
On September 17 2018 07:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 07:09 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On September 17 2018 06:57 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 06:54 KwarK wrote:
"Maybe it was another high ranking man in Washington and she's just confused" is the weirdest of all takes on this for me. I'd be happier with "fake news" or "she's a deep state agent". Either it happened or it didn't happen. She either fabricated it for some kind of political motive or it's true. The suggestion that it happened, but there's also some kind of mistaken identities involved feels like the compromise 9/11 theory where terrorists took down one tower and Bush took down the other. It's taking a middle ground at the expense of reason. She also said she doesn't know where or when this happened, which is a very large thing people are ignoring. Her memory on this is not unimpeachable. I will reiterate. I don't know with 100% certainty, but nor does anyone else. And everyone else is going 'lets fine out before we confirm him to the highest judiciary position, for life" while your going "meh, why bother, lets go". As for the stalling. Didn't we have this conversation a little while ago where it was decided that its really important to have an election before a Supreme Court nomination so that the people can speak? I guess that only applies when the Democrats would get to pick. Reap what you sowed. I am not being nearly as cavalier as that. I think this was not handled appropriately and now 35 year old accusations almost impossible to prove brought out at the very last second are serious matters and stink to the high heavens, either allowing a vote to maybe be delayed past an election or permanently smearing a new justice, which will have great rhetorical value in the future. On that last point, I will redirect you to two article I've linked before: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-rejections-politics-has-lot-do-it/https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/it-doesnt-matter-garland-didnt-get-hearing/ I read your articles. Show nested quote +"No hearing would have persuaded anyone of anything. The Senate wastes enough time on pointless charades as it is." That's pretty damning for the state of democracy. It essentially reduces the legislative to nothing more than theatre to be played for tribal bases. The argument made was that the process of supreme court nominations is a charade and therefore it can be dispensed with without loss. Even if that is true that should not be something to be celebrated.
Not quite, although open hearings, as we saw last week, are just shows. But he is pointing out that the Democratic line "he didn't even get a hearing!" is garbage. Whether they refused Garland with or without a hearing was immaterial. Even if he got a hearing it he would not have been confirmed. So why pretend?
and yes, we are in quite a state right now, no one denies that.
|
On September 17 2018 06:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:54 KwarK wrote:
"Maybe it was another high ranking man in Washington and she's just confused" is the weirdest of all takes on this for me. I'd be happier with "fake news" or "she's a deep state agent". Either it happened or it didn't happen. She either fabricated it for some kind of political motive or it's true. The suggestion that it happened, but there's also some kind of mistaken identities involved feels like the compromise 9/11 theory where terrorists took down one tower and Bush took down the other. It's taking a middle ground at the expense of reason. She also said she doesn't know where or when this happened, which is a very large thing people are ignoring. Her memory on this is not impeachable. I will reiterate. I don't know with 100% certainty, but nor does anyone else.
Which of these do you think a rape victim is more likely to remember:
1. Whose party it was at/whose house it was
2. The day/month/year on which it occurred
3. The name and face of the rapist
To me, it's obviously 3, distantly followed by 1, then 2.
I mean, this seems kinda open and shut to me, so tell me where this is fuzzy to you:
She said in 2012 she was almost raped by a guy who is now a powerful person in Washington. That means the allegation wasn't invented for political purposes, assuming the therapist's notes are real, because inventing a sexual assault by somebody and telling your therapist about it *just in case* it'll pay off politically someday is batshit insane.
She says it's Kavanaugh. To me that makes mistaken identity very improbable. She would have to go to school with two different guys who became powerful men in Washington, almost get raped by one, and then in the intervening years mix him up with the other one. That's almost as crazy as her inventing it 6 years ago just in case he ever got nominated to the court.
What's maybe a little less crazy is if she almost got raped by some other guy in Washington, told her therapist about it, and then saw an opportunity to hold up Kavanaugh's confirmation by saying it was him instead. There's probably dozens of women in the country who have been assaulted by powerful guys in Washington, and many of them are probably pro-choice. A few might be willing to lie for that cause. But it shouldn't take much investigation to confirm that she would have been in the same school/hometown as him, which makes that story way less likely.
Maybe she doesn't remember it quite right. It's conceivable that a girl might go to a party for the first time and get drunk and kinda freak out, and then some guy tries to dance with her and she flips out and runs away because she thinks he's trying to rape her. My problem is, that's conceivable but seems way less likely than a guy actually trying something. If a girl thinks a guy tried to rape her it's usually because a guy tried to rape her, especially when you read this guy Judge's recollections about getting blackout drunk and trying to get laid. It seems way more likely that a guy like that at least started grabbing at somebody without permission than that he was actually being perfectly gentlemanly but through some improbable miscommunication she thought she was being assaulted.
Then there's Drone's suggestion that as sexual assault goes this maybe wasn't *that* disqualifying. They were young, it was a long time ago, people were drunk, and it sounds from what little I've read it sounds like she got away before it got too horrible. So maybe he did something inappropriate but it's not bad enough to be disqualifying.
The problem is, you'd really have to investigate it to know just how bad it was. I mean, guys in my middle school liked to "scoop" girls' breasts without permission. That's assault and should not be tolerated, but if 35 years later one of those guys was a distinguished legal scholar nominated to the court, I wouldn't disqualify him just for a shitty middle school trend. On the other hand, a guy I went to high school with turned out to be a serial rapist. I would absolutely disqualify him from the highest court in the land for that. So to me, you'd have to do an investigation before you knew if this was disqualifying or not. The only way I could see waiting for the investigation not being necessary is if you didn't think even the worst case scenario was disqualifying.
So basically, I see three possibilities:
1. He might be a rapist, but we don't care enough to disqualify him. Confirm him right away.
2. We're not quite sure if he's a rapist/how bad it is, so we'll wait for the investigation before holding a vote.
3. What we know about him already is enough to disqualify him. Vote him down and nominate someone else.
Feel free to tell me where I've got that wrong. Otherwise, it seems like all the Republicans I see are pretty firmly on 1, which means everything else is just distraction. "Maybe she was assaulted by a different Washington guy" or "well Feinstein should have brought this up sooner" or "this confirmation process isn't going any quicker than the confirmations of other justices who weren't accused of secual assault" are all red herrings, because at the heart of the matter, you don't consider the alleged behavior bad enough to give up your new Supreme Court justice. If you did, you'd be willing to wait until we know for sure.
|
I do love that the justifications to how the senate has handed the last three nominations has effectively made the entire process meaningless those folks. There is no point to any of it and every nomination should he handled by an up/down vote along party lines to save time.
|
United States43219 Posts
On September 17 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 07:42 KwarK wrote:On September 17 2018 07:09 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On September 17 2018 06:57 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 06:54 KwarK wrote:
"Maybe it was another high ranking man in Washington and she's just confused" is the weirdest of all takes on this for me. I'd be happier with "fake news" or "she's a deep state agent". Either it happened or it didn't happen. She either fabricated it for some kind of political motive or it's true. The suggestion that it happened, but there's also some kind of mistaken identities involved feels like the compromise 9/11 theory where terrorists took down one tower and Bush took down the other. It's taking a middle ground at the expense of reason. She also said she doesn't know where or when this happened, which is a very large thing people are ignoring. Her memory on this is not unimpeachable. I will reiterate. I don't know with 100% certainty, but nor does anyone else. And everyone else is going 'lets fine out before we confirm him to the highest judiciary position, for life" while your going "meh, why bother, lets go". As for the stalling. Didn't we have this conversation a little while ago where it was decided that its really important to have an election before a Supreme Court nomination so that the people can speak? I guess that only applies when the Democrats would get to pick. Reap what you sowed. I am not being nearly as cavalier as that. I think this was not handled appropriately and now 35 year old accusations almost impossible to prove brought out at the very last second are serious matters and stink to the high heavens, either allowing a vote to maybe be delayed past an election or permanently smearing a new justice, which will have great rhetorical value in the future. On that last point, I will redirect you to two article I've linked before: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-rejections-politics-has-lot-do-it/https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/it-doesnt-matter-garland-didnt-get-hearing/ I read your articles. "No hearing would have persuaded anyone of anything. The Senate wastes enough time on pointless charades as it is." That's pretty damning for the state of democracy. It essentially reduces the legislative to nothing more than theatre to be played for tribal bases. The argument made was that the process of supreme court nominations is a charade and therefore it can be dispensed with without loss. Even if that is true that should not be something to be celebrated. Not quite, although open hearings, as we saw last week, are just shows. But he is pointing out that the Democratic line "he didn't even get a hearing!" is garbage. Whether they refused Garland with or without a hearing was immaterial. Even if he got a hearing it he would not have been confirmed. So why pretend? and yes, we are in quite a state right now, no one denies that.
I guess my issue with it is the abdication of responsibility. The idea that they can shamelessly argue that it doesn't matter that they didn't do their duty to consider nominees because even if they had done it they'd have only pretended to consider him anyway. That's like explaining that it's fine that you stopped showing up to work because you never did anything at work anyway. You still need to take ownership of the first state of affairs, even if making the argument that the second isn't really any worse than the first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
