Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So he’ll lose $33,200.00 a year if he has to stay a Circuit Court Judge for life
His reputation is shot, I don’t think he’ll go back to work at the circuit court if the Senate finds him guilty of the charges. Probably will write a book and become a legal contributor on the cable news, defending his honor.

I’m surprised that the headmaster of Georgetown Prep and the alumni haven’t stood up for their alma mater. Its a very elite school, and I’m not sure how many elite parents considering where to send their children want them to go to an institution now known for binge and blackout drinking and Rape Train parties. I bet Baron Trump doesn’t go there for high school.
 
His reputation is shot, I don’t think he’ll go back to work at the circuit court if the Senate finds him guilty of the charges. Probably will write a book and become a legal contributor on the cable news, defending his honor.

I’m surprised that the headmaster of Georgetown Prep and the alumni haven’t stood up for their alma mater. Its a very elite school, and I’m not sure how many elite parents considering where to send their children want them to go to an institution now known for binge and blackout drinking and Rape Train parties. I bet Baron Trump doesn’t go there for high school.
The Senate is not considering criminal charges. The Senate is considering whether there are grounds to vote against confirmation.

Honestly, I don’t think the charges sound like anything the FBI will be able to confirm. They might be able to say there is a lot of hearsay evidence out there, but it sounds like the only first-hand witness the most credible witness is claiming says it didn’t happen. You can believe she’s telling the truth and it still leaves open the possibility that she made a mistake in identifying the guys at the time.

Actually, I think it is more concerning that Judge Kavanaugh may have a habit of very heavy social drinking that perhaps both he and his friends are in denial about. If that is the case, I would think that is disqualifying for a justice of the Supreme Court. It wouldn’t necessarily get him thrown out of his current position, though.

We’ll have to wait and see. It is within the realm of possibility that this is a matter of mistaken identity and/or fabricated slurs against an innocent man whose real offense is having been nominated by the Wrong President.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Godfollower:
So he’ll lose $33,200.00 a year if he has to stay a Circuit Court Judge for life
His reputation is shot, I don’t think he’ll go back to work at the circuit court if the Senate finds him guilty of the charges. Probably will write a book and become a legal contributor on the cable news, defending his honor.
There is no trial going on, so the Senate is not going to be finding him innocent or guilty of anything. And a lot of the people who will vote against him will be doing so not because of the rape allegation but because they disagree with his judicial philosophy and his past heavy involvement in partisan politics.
 
But now it is public. If they do not confirm him, they will in effect ruining this man’s life.
Once one becomes a public figure, he becomes fair game for books, articles, etc. The Senate didn’t make him a public figure.
 
Actually, I think it is more concerning that Judge Kavanaugh may have a habit of very heavy social drinking that perhaps both he and his friends are in denial about. If that is the case, I would think that is disqualifying for a justice of the Supreme Court. It wouldn’t necessarily get him thrown out of his current position, though.
I wouldn’t worry about that. Anyone mentioning a drinking problem is referring to high school or college. The execution of his professional duties throughout and in his 12 years as Appeals Judge has not been questioned at all as far as I know. Drinking too much in college is really irrelevant to whether he will do a good job as a Judge, which he has already proven and is why he was nominated.
 
Actually, I think it is more concerning that Judge Kavanaugh may have a habit of very heavy social drinking that perhaps both he and his friends are in denial about.
I really don’t think that’s true. Kav graduated at the top of his class. I don’t think that very many top students at elite schools are getting loaded all the time and organizing Rape Train parties.
 
They did their investigation, witnesses either fail to corroborate it or refute it. If you allow that you’re saying no one will ever be confirmed because interest groups now know all they need to derail a nomination is an accusation that does not need any corroboration and can even have been refuted but will still suffice.
In an earlier case, Judge Kavanaugh upheld a decision denying habeus corpus relief to a Guantanamo detainee. There was an interesting comment in his opinion:
Fourth, the District Court found, and the evidence supports the conclusion, that Ali participated in Abu Zubaydah’s terrorist training program by taking English lessons at the guesthouse. At least one of Ali’s housemates provided multiple, specific accounts of having witnessed Ali and other housemates taking English lessons from a member of Abu Zubaydah’s force. Ali offers no persuasive rebuttal to those detailed eyewitness reports. The District Court did not clearly err by relying on that evidence.
Ali v. Obama, 736 F.3d 542, 548 (D.C. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 118 (2014).

Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion in 2013 was probably correct. Under American law in most instances, the testimony of a single uncorroborated eyewitness is enough to convict a criminal defendant if the witness is believed by the fact-finder. Here, the Judiciary Committee is dealing with one person (Dr. Ford) “provid[ing] multiple, specific accounts of having witnessed” him committing this act (one before the Committee under oath, one to her therapist several years ago). Given that this is a job interview and not a criminal trial, he needed to disprove the allegations.

And they didn’t do their investigation. They’re finally doing it now, after the hearing. They should’ve done it before.

But the bottom line is that we need to get to the bottom of this before the decision is made to put him on the Supreme Court. Backing him blindly now in the theory that an investigation probably won’t find anything is exactly what too many of our bishops did for too long. An accusation has been made, and preliminary findings make it credible (meaning simply that it can’t easily be disproven). Now a real investigation is underway. Maybe it’ll prove the accusation; maybe it will disprove the accusation; most likely it will merely provide additional information that can then be used to weigh the parties’ testimony. But please don’t dismiss the entire thing simply because all we have is an eyewitness. Our courts put people in prison for years at a time based on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony all the time. If an uncorroborated eyewitness isn’t enough to deny a Supreme Court seat, then we need to let a whole lot of people out of prison.

Or we could just do a full investigation and see where it takes us.
 
40.png
HarryStotle:
He has been nominated by due process, so he does have a right to be duly considered for that position and not be unfairly deprived of taking that seat.
Like Garland?
Garland wasn’t unfairly deprived. The process was followed as it should have been and he didn’t get the sufficient number of votes in the Senate to formally be considered.

The rules were followed properly…


Hopefully, the rules will be followed in Kavanaugh’s case.

You may want to take that up with Joe Biden and Harry Reid, who set the precedent but don’t appreciate it when the precedent comes back to bite them.
 
But the lack of details is precisely the problem with Dr. Ford’s testimony. She doesn’t even know where it happened. How are you supposed to PROVE you didn’t do something without a date and location? How are you supposed to prove you were elsewhere, for example? If I say Godfollower raped me at some point between 92 and 94 somewhere in Carlifonia, how exactly are you supposed to rebut that? You’re creating an impossible standard. The facts provided by the accuser have been denied by the only other people who were supposedly there, in addition, including Dr. Ford’s own friend. So it’s not the same at all as the case you describe. Secondly, I understand the FBI can’t subpoena anyone or ask for any documents, or make a finding, which the Senate committee could so the idea they’ll be more thorough is an illusion. It’s just PR.
 
Last edited:
40.png
phil19034:
I would rather 1000 guilt people go free than 1 innocent life be ruined.
Ruined? He is left with nothing but a federal judgeship for life.

I get what you say about the court of public opinion being unjust, but saying he is ruined because he cannot be a Supreme Court just is a little melodramatic.
Not exactly, because there have been calls to have him removed from the district court based in these allegations.

Now it would seem that if these allegations are sufficient to have him be removed from consideration for the Supreme Court that they should also be sufficient to have him removed from the District Court.

Why wouldn’t that be the case, according to your lights?

And the opposite would also be true. If the allegations are not sufficient to have him removed from the district circuit, they should also not be sufficient to have him removed from consideration for the Supreme Court.
 
Now it would seem that if these allegations are sufficient to have him be removed from consideration for the Supreme Court that they should also be sufficient to have him removed from the District Court.

Why wouldn’t that be the case, according to your lights?
Federal Court, not district court. (Circuit Court, to be precise) It would not be the case because removal requires impeachment, and two thirds vote.
 
And when the Democrats take control and expand the S.C. to 11 by simple majority, you can take that up with McConnell.
 
That’s what the investigation is for. The FBI is very good at nailing down that sort of thing. I’m not saying they’re perfect, but they can help figure things out. They ask lots and lots and lots of questions, and they do their best to trigger memory of details that help out. Suppose in the middle of the interview they ask her about smells and she remembers a strong mildew smell from the room. Then suppose another witness says oh yeah; Bob’s house had that bad leak that year! Et cetera. The point is, first you investigate, then you draw your conclusions.

If Rubee actually accused me, I would demand an investigation to force Rubee to tell every single detail of the incident. You had a dog at the time? Check the vet records to confirm the dates. There was snow on the ground? Check the weather service records for snow in California in those years. It was somewhere in California? Check my employment records to prove my whereabouts, my travel records, etc.

And if Rubee said that a friend of mine saw it happen, I would scream from the housetops to have that friend testify, especially if I knew he was going to say he remembered no such thing.

I would not argue that, because I say it didn’t happen, there should be neither investigation nor consequences.
 
Last edited:
They ask lots and lots and lots of questions,
There is nothing really to ask a lot of question about here. No details as to the date or the place of the alleged attack. Further, the supposed witnesses have already denied being there.
 
I think . . . if it were me, I’d have said, “I’m not guilty but I’m not going to put my family through the fight,” and withdraw.
Which is precisely what the progressive left wants and why they will use this tactic to remove anyone they do not want holding public office from consideration.

It is the standard MO of the Dems to use allegations to attack their opponents. If the person does not back down, then they repeat the allegations or bring others on board until it wears the individual down.

In fact, it works as a preventative against anyone who might have something in their past but has been clean and been trying to accomplish much needed change. Good and decent individuals will be dissuaded from trying for public office or implementing change for the better by threat of takedown and ruin.

The fact that you would tacitly endorse this kind of tactic by accepting it as permissible is disturbing, really.

This is one very good reason for thinking Kavanaugh is, in fact, innocent. He is not ignorant of how Supreme Court nominees in the past have been viciously attacked. And he knew full-well that the viciousness of the attack would be far worse with Trump backing his candidacy.

Kavanaugh would have looked very carefully and completely into his own background for anything that could have been brought foreword and would not have permitted himself and his family to have to be put through this if there was something, anything, in his background.

Even more to the point, he had his detailed calendars to prompt his memories of anything that could have been turned up, which is the reason I think he had them so accessible. He would also have been very aware that anything of any grave concern would have certainly ended not just his candidacy for Supreme Court, but his career, and his personal and family life.

Kavanaugh is no fool and there is every reason to think he would have passed on the nomination and sat comfortable as circuit court judge with almost the same salary and benefits had there been anything at all in his background. Why would he have risked it all unless he was fully cognizant of his absolute innocence in the past? That is the only thing that could explain his willingness to go forward when he was picked by Trump.

I am also certain that Trump and his people would have delved very deeply into Kavanaugh’s past before coming up with his name, knowing ahead of time what to expect from the Dems. He has had on-the-job experience, so to speak – Manafort, Cohen, the Mueller Inquisition, Comey, Brennan, the Clinton Mob, etc., etc. – who would leave no stone unturned to come up with something, anything; and roughly half the population very willing to eat up any salaciousness to bring down anyone Trump had nominated.

There is every reason to believe Kavanaugh is clean, and virtually none to think he is guilty.
 
I’d agree if Dr. Ford had given details about which others can be pinned with questions. She has not. The FBI are not magicians and can’t even compel witnesses to talk. If someone cannot be asked about anything specific, you’re talking about a very short interview, especially about things that happened decades ago.
 
There is nothing really to ask a lot of question about here. No details as to the date or the place of the alleged attack. Further, the supposed witnesses have already denied being there.
What were you wearing? What was he wearing? What was Mr. Judge wearing? Then check the old photographs to see whether you can corroborate such clothes.

What did the room look like? Did the door open in or out? Did you turn right or left when you left? Where were the stairs? What door did you use? Did you exit toward the street or the side or back yard? Were there any trees? Was there a garden? What cars did you see? Was a dog or cat at the party? Then you try to find a house that fits that description.

What music was playing? Was there a game on tv? Were people playing party games? Which ones? Who won? Was there any drama about who was dating whom? What things do you remember people talking about at the time? What was on your mind at school? Were you worried about homework or a test? When you thought about the incident in the following weeks, were you sitting in your desk at school, or in a canoe at summer camp, or what? Did anything “trigger” the incident in your mind at later events? Did family members or friends ever say things that you took the wrong way because of what happened to you? Tell me about that. Does that make you remember anything? Then you check out those details.

There are many, many, many questions that can be asked; and the details can then be checked. Neither she nor he will remember the answers to every question. And, even among the answers you get, not all of them will be subject to confirmation. Time has run, and things have changed. But you can start to piece together holes in the story of one or both of them; and that can lead you to the truth.

And the truth will set you free.
 
Last edited:
Federal Court, not district court. (Circuit Court, to be precise) It would not be the case because removal requires impeachment, and two thirds vote.
Yes, I meant district as in District of Columbia Circuit.

I should have been more precise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top