Supreme court nominees

[dvdjs]

She doesn’t even remember where this occurred or exactly when or Her age,first she said 15 then 17? there were two witnesses then four Doesn’t know how she got home,never told anyone in all these years.Really?

Why not let competent investigators talk to the people who have some knowledge of the case, rather than gathering up spin-doctored snippets as though there represented competent fact finding?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

As often as you use the word “condemned” for this case I will continue to point out that being denied a seat on the Supreme Court for life is not in the same league as being “condemned.” Kavanaugh can continue to have his job as a district judge and live quite well regardless of the outcome of this hearing.

Its not just a matter of a seat on the SCOTUS…its his reputation and being labeled a sexual predator.

If Kavanaugh is denied a seat on the SCOTUS, that will not constitute any official affirmation of Professor Ford’s allegations. They will continue to be just her claim. Kavanaugh will continue to enjoy about the same level of public status as he had before. If he really thinks this claim is slander, his recourse is the file a civil suit against Ford. But this present hearing does not do anything other than determine if he is going to be a Justice.

Look no further than Matthew Dowd of ABC News referring to Clarence Thomas as a sexual predator.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-justice-clarence-thomas-sexual-predator.html

Well, if you look no further than the headline of the article you quoted, you will see that Matthew Dowd was slammed for using that label on Thomas. That supports my point that the hearings establish nothing official other than who is going to be a Justice.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why should I believe a Democrat media outlet about the court case presided over by Martha Kavanaugh? Produce the transcript of all of it and we’ll see what it says. For all we know, the Blaseys made one of those bogus claims potential forecloses make, got ruled against and redeemed the property as provided under Md law.

It really is a matter of dismissing her story out of hand at this point. The Dems sat on this for going on three months despite having had multiple opportunities to talk about it, including with Kavanaugh. It’s just the Dems’ current strategy to keep a potential prolifer off the court.

As I understand the story, Ms. Ford doesn’t actually allege “attempted rape”.

 

[dvdjs]

Actually the FBI said in an article that it wasn’t their jurisdiction because there was no evidence that anyone had committed a federal crime.

Can you link to the FBI comment.
The FBI does background checks on the nominees. They absolutely have jurisdiction to investigate this matter.

One of her witnesses said he knows nothing about this

She has pointed out that she has no first hand knowledge of this, but had heard stories of it at the time, and is familiar with the parties involved. Her twitter account is still active.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s because Ford did not want it known, assuming it happened. She has never filed a police report. There’s nothing for the FBI to investigate.

Now it is known. There is something to investigate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why not let competent investigators talk to the people who have some knowledge of the case

Because that’s a total deception on the part of Dems who simply want to delay the appointment beyond a point of no return. Nobody has yet supported Ford’s claim. Lots of people have supported Kavanaugh’s character and conduct.

But then, a political party, the only real program of which is killing children, can’t really be expected to take a high road on anything. And no one should expect it to.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

LeafByNiggle:

As often as you use the word “condemned” for this case I will continue to point out that being denied a seat on the Supreme Court for life is not in the same league as being “condemned.” Kavanaugh can continue to have his job as a district judge and live quite well regardless of the outcome of this hearing.

Its not just a matter of a seat on the SCOTUS…its his reputation and being labeled a sexual predator.

If Kavanaugh is denied a seat on the SCOTUS, that will not constitute any official affirmation of Professor Ford’s allegations. They will continue to be just her claim. Kavanaugh will continue to enjoy about the same level of public status as he had before. If he really thinks this claim is slander, his recourse is the file a civil suit against Ford. But this present hearing does not do anything other than determine if he is going to be a Justice.

Look no further than Matthew Dowd of ABC News referring to Clarence Thomas as a sexual predator.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-justice-clarence-thomas-sexual-predator.html

Well, if you look no further than the headline of the article you quoted, you will see that Matthew Dowd was slammed for using that label on Thomas. That supports my point that the hearings establish nothing official other than who is going to be a Justice.

First, you know that given the circumstances in the US today, filing a slander suit against Prof Ford, would only acerbate the attacks against HIM (“he’s trying to silence victims…”).

Second, the fact that Matthew Dowd was slammed for his label doesn’t prove your point…it only proves that Matthew Dowd himself was slammed by mostly right-leaning sources. There is no question that Clarence Thomas’s reputation took a hit during his confirmation hearings, and Kavanaugh’s reputation will take a hit too during this fiasco.

 

[Victoria33]

I’m sure we will see the same outrage about Keith Elllison.

 

[KMC]

But then, a political party, the only real program of which is killing children, can’t really be expected to take a high road on anything. And no one should expect it to.

This is a great point. Its reasonable to be suspicious of the motives of a political party that sees nothing morally wrong with the killing of the unborn.

 

[dvdjs]

Because that’s a total deception on the part of Dems who simply want to delay the appointment beyond a point of no return.

Thanks for your candor, in admitting that you want Kavanaugh pushed through and fear that a delay might jeopardize his appointment. It is not often that a corruption of process for desired political outcomes is so forthrightly admitted.

 

[angel12]

Can anyone tell me why it was okay for Mitch McConnell to block a Supreme court nominee by Barack Obama for 10 months because it was too close to an election and then now push through a nominee two months before an election?

Because, Republicans.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why should I believe a Democrat media outlet about the court case presided over by Martha Kavanaugh?

Then find a more authoritative source for your rumor and give me a reason why I should believe it.

It really is a matter of dismissing her story out of hand at this point. The Dems sat on this for going on three months despite having had multiple opportunities to talk about it, including with Kavanaugh.

You may not know this, but Feinstein was requested by Ford not to disclose her story because she feared reprisals. Only recently did Ford give permission to use her story. Feinstein respected her request. It is just that. Of course you can see nefarious motives in the purest of acts, but imagining motives is a lot different from proving them. Indeed, Ford has received numerous death threats since going public and has now been forced to leave her home. It is no wonder she was reluctant to go public.

 

[Victoria33]

Thanks for your candor, in admitting that you want Kavanaugh pushed through and fear that a delay might jeopardize his appointment. It is not often that a corruption of process for desired political outcomes is so forthrightly admitted.

Yes, i would compliment him on his honesty as well.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

First, you know that given the circumstances in the US today, filing a slander suit against Prof Ford, would only acerbate the attacks against HIM (“he’s trying to silence victims…”).

Right now she is the one getting death threats and has had to leave her home. I find it difficult to feel sorry for potential public opinion against Kavanaugh in the face of real and present threats against Ford.

Second, the fact that Matthew Dowd was slammed for his label doesn’t prove your point…it only proves that Matthew Dowd himself was slammed by mostly right-leaning sources. There is no question that Clarence Thomas’s reputation took a hit during his confirmation hearings…

And so did Anita Hill’s reputation take a hit. But last I looked, Thomas was still a respected Justice of the Supreme Court, and had no need of public adulation.

 

[dvdjs]

Yes, i would compliment him on his honesty as well.

There is an interesting mingling of ideas on the thread. This idea that one can manifest the virtue of candor even while falling short by elevating politics over justice, nicely illustrates why genetic arguments are fallacious.

 

[Victoria33]

There is an interesting mingling of ideas on the thread. This idea that one can manifest the virtue of candor even while falling short by elevating politics over justice, nicely illustrates why genetic arguments are fallacious.

I don’t believe that. I don’t see you all complaining about Keith Ellison, so it is a double standard. This woman basically has no credibility and many of us find the Democratic platform repugnant, it’s not just abortion, they were about to take “God” out a few years ago. It would be a number of their stances. They’ve also been harsh on Israel which many of us disagree with.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No “corruption of process” to it except on the part of Feinstein who hid what she now represents as “evidence” until the last minute in order to interrupt the confirmation process as it is supposed to be. The planned delay is not some short term thing.

There’s the “corruption”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Produce the transcript or a link to it and we’ll see what the real source says. At this point, it’s double hearsay and entirely conclusory at that. No foundation.

Feinstein thinks she has evidence of the unfitness of a Supreme Court justice and she sits on it because of an alleged “request”? What nonsense! Ford isn’t some street-sweeper. She’s a PhD professor. She sent the letter to Feinstein just so a person who wasn’t going to vote for Kavanaugh anyway wouldn’t vote for Kavanaugh?

Doesn’t pass any test of credibility. This is just the Dems ploy to block confirmation of a man they suspect could be prolife because of his religion. Anti-Catholic bigotry at its most obvious.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

That’s because Ford did not want it known, assuming it happened. She has never filed a police report. There’s nothing for the FBI to investigate.

Now it is known. There is something to investigate.

Not if she hadn’t filed a police report in the jurisdiction it happened. Until then, it is nothing.
Maryland has no statute of limitations on sexual assault. Bethesda has jurisdiction the FBI does not, which is why they should not investigate.

 

[dvdjs]

No “corruption of process”

The Republican strategy of staging a he said/she said face-off is a corruption.
Anita Hill spoke eloquently about this last night on the News Hour.

Anita Hill on Kavanaugh: 'Without an investigation, there cannot be an effective hearing'

With accusations against Brett Kavanaugh evoking memories of another Supreme Court confirmation battle, law professor and author Anita Hill says that a professional investigation is needed to ensure a fair hearing. Hill, who came forward publicly to accuse Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment...

www.pbs.org

And in an op-ed in the NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/opinion/anita-hill-brett-kavanaugh-clarence-thomas.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Here are some basic ground rules the committee should follow:

Refrain from pitting the public interest in confronting sexual harassment against the need for a fair confirmation hearing. Our interest in the integrity of the Supreme Court and in eliminating sexual misconduct, especially in our public institutions, are entirely compatible. Both are aimed at making sure that our judicial system operates with legitimacy.

Select a neutral investigative body with experience in sexual misconduct cases that will investigate the incident in question and present its findings to the committee. Outcomes in such investigations are more reliable and less likely to be perceived as tainted by partisanship. Senators must then rely on the investigators’ conclusions, along with advice from experts, to frame the questions they ask Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. Again, the senators’ fact-finding roles must guide their behavior. The investigators’ report should frame the hearing, not politics or myths about sexual assault.

Do not rush these hearings. Doing so would not only signal that sexual assault accusations are not important — hastily appraising this situation would very likely lead to facts being overlooked that are necessary for the Senate and the public to evaluate. That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging. Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges.

Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her name. She was once anonymous, but no longer is. Dr. Blasey is not simply “Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser.” Dr. Blasey is a human being with a life of her own. She deserves the respect of being addressed and treated as a whole person.