Kavanaugh says he's unchanged by bitter U.S. Supreme Court confirmation

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Really. Well is it one or the other? Do you have an alternative scenario or view? Alcoholic blackouts? Any hint of that since college days? Any hint of that in 7 FBI investigations?

 

Why would he have appointed so many women then? Because he likes their looks? Because hes afraid of other men? Or because hes a sexual predator? Since everyone is so quick to analyze his character and motives, what does his unquestioned record of hiring and mentoring women lawyers mean?

 

In point of fact: Since his record is apparently unblemished by alleged scandal since no later than his undergrad days at Yale, doesnt his unblemished record as a Judge of promoting women to positions of power mean that he is not a mysogynistic, perverted, blackout drunk sexual abusing rapist? Or have his law clerks told us different? Which is it?

 

Seems that when some hard questions are asked the responses are: deflection, stupid, BS reductio ad absurdum (that doesnt really apply, but thats another thread), right wing, Trump lover etc etc ad nauseum (and that does apply).

 

If you object to Associate Justice Kavanaugh because he is a constitutional originalist, thats fine, you are taking a position that is defensible. If you object to Associate Justice Kavanaugh because you consider him to be "tainted" due to President Trump, thats fine too even though IMHO its indefensible and silly. If you object to him on the grounds that his temperament is wanting due to his speech at the hearing, you are making an argument that can be debated by rational folks.

 

But if you are making the argument that he is and was a sexual predator, you are basically libeling someone. Whether or not the Mods agree with that characterization and choose to allow it or not isnt my call. Whether its actionable isnt my call, and It doesnt affect me in the slightest.

 

But the questions I ask are designed to make people think about what they say about someone, and the lack of answers other than insults is telling. I want to be told I am wrong, give me a rational argument then.

 

And I am having a helluva time getting my whites clean with this weird Thai detergent. Happy soap bubbles dancing doesnt make it Oxyclean.

 

 

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Kavanaugh has had three separate accusations of misconduct by women. The age of those accusations is irrelevant. The fact that it is a multiple is, because it indicates a pattern. There are probably more women who have not come forward, because of the adversarial nature of the legal process.

Let's suppose for a moment you have been anally raped by another male. How motivated would you be to seek justice, knowing what the legal system in America does to victims?

My objection to Kavanaugh is not based on whether he is a Trump appointee. It's based on the office he is going to assume, as it flouts the principle Caesar's wife should be beyond suspicion.

 

"Happy soap bubbles dancing doesn't make it Oxyclean". Congratulations, you've just encapsulated the argument against Kavanaugh's confirmation.

You could try bleach instead, although some stains just won't come out, if you catch my drift.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Lacessit

[DM07]

18 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yes that's the ticket. If you don't like someone's political view simply accuse and denounce him/her and then declare them guilty and deprive them of their right to be presumed innocent.

 

Stalin/Lenin/Beria and Trotsky knew what they were doing!

Yeah...right!

Cry me a river!

Did you watch the hearings?

I did!

His opening statement was one of the most pathetic cry-baby- stuff, I have ever seen and his rant against the Democrats and the Clintons(!) was unhinged and borderline conspiracy theory- territory, worthy of Alex Jones!

He lied repeatedly under oath and he has 3 allegations of sexual assault against him and absolutely refused an investigation on these points!

If I were accused of sexual assault and I didn't do it...you bet I would ask for an investigation myself!

But I guess, we all have a good idea, why he didn't! 

The way he responded to questions from women on the committee ("Did you?...I wonder...did you?") and the way he described a woman in his yearbook (and NO, it was not, because she was a respected and well loved friend...otherwise, please explain to me, why she was shocked and disgusted to find out, the called her "Alumni"!) speak volumes about the way, he saw and obviously sees women!

So...I guess, where there is smoke!

 

 

 

 

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

Did you know, that Roy Moore's lawyer is a Jew?

 

Kavanaugh could have a million reasons, to have a bunch of female assistents.

Some, I really don't want to think about, in the light of the allegations of sexual assault.

Others might be, that women still get payed less than men.

Another could be, that he enjoys commanding around women.

Who knows?

But for you, it is a given, that he hired them, because he is a good guy and a feminist at heart!

And that is simply pathetic!

 

And now...please...take your silly little theory and run with it!

 

Why would Roy Moores  Jewish lawyer have anything to do with anything? 

 

So your contention is that he hires clerks for:

 

a. He does it for sex assault. Yet none of his clerks have come forward.

b. He can pay them less. Unfortunately for you, he doesnt set pay rates, and all clerks are paid equally.

c.  He likes to boss women around. Yet his clerks have said nothing bad about him, and have universally supported him.

 

Yet you call my rationale that he is a supports women lawyers "pathetic"?   Clearly, you know more about Associate Justice Kavanaugh than his clerks do....

 

OK. Right. I think you should give up as your posts are becoming desperate, as well as increasingly foolish.

[Nyezhov]

35 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Kavanaugh has had three separate accusations of misconduct by women.

So you consider all 3 credible? 

 

PS I cant use bleach on them the little label says no bleach. But a little dish detergent worked!

Edited October 9, 2018 by Nyezhov

[Becker]

Kavanaugh says he's unchanged by bitter U.S. Supreme Court confirmation

 

Cryin' Kav is unchanged. Yup, that's what I was afraid of.

[Nyezhov]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Ad hominem means attacking the person. He's attacking your post, and giving his reason.

I recommend "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by RH Thouless to you, as you seem to be in need of it.

well there is an hominem LOL.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I'll give you another reason.

Because it is PC, and his supporters can use that as a semi-reasonable evidence that he has a high opinion of women.

Even though his pattern and practice has always been to hire women. Even before he was being considered for the Supreme Court. Let me see..

 

1. He used his crystal ball to figure out Trump would win and he would get appointed and he better burnish his bona fides...or

 

2. He was so consumed with guilt over his sex crimes he decided to make up for it by hiring women.

 

It grows more ridiculous by the hour.

 

 OK. Next

[Nyezhov]

31 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's based on the office he is going to assume, as it flouts the principle Caesar's wife should be beyond suspicion.

So all one needs to do to defeat a nominated Justice is to make an allegation, no matter how far fetched. Got it.

[Nyezhov]

51 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yes that's the ticket. If you don't like someone's political view simply accuse and denounce him/her and then declare them guilty and deprive them of their right to be presumed innocent.

 

Stalin/Lenin/Beria and Trotsky knew what they were doing!

Show me the man and Ill show you the crime. Thats what old Lavrentii Pavlovich loved to say.

[DM07]

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Even though his pattern and practice has always been to hire women. Even before he was being considered for the Supreme Court. Let me see..

 

1. He used his crystal ball to figure out Trump would win and he would get appointed and he better burnish his bona fides...or

 

2. He was so consumed with guilt over his sex crimes he decided to make up for it by hiring women.

 

It grows more ridiculous by the hour.

 

 OK. Next

"It grows more ridiculous by the hour."

Indeed, it does!

 

[Becker]

7 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Even though his pattern and practice has always been to hire women. Even before he was being considered for the Supreme Court. Let me see..

 

1. He used his crystal ball to figure out Trump would win and he would get appointed and he better burnish his bona fides...or

 

2. He was so consumed with guilt over his sex crimes he decided to make up for it by hiring women.

 

It grows more ridiculous by the hour.

 

 OK. Next

That's not an extensive list. I can easily add a couple of points:

 

3. He likes to look at them. I mean he might really like to look at them.

 

4. He's obviously a very sensitive guy so might be more comfortable in the presence of women.

 

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Even though his pattern and practice has always been to hire women. Even before he was being considered for the Supreme Court. Let me see..

 

1. He used his crystal ball to figure out Trump would win and he would get appointed and he better burnish his bona fides...or

 

2. He was so consumed with guilt over his sex crimes he decided to make up for it by hiring women.

 

It grows more ridiculous by the hour.

 

 OK. Next

Well.

It was you who brought up Mr. Kavanough female staff, as a proof for your theories, innit.

Now, every lawyer or solicitor i have been in contact with, hires good looking young, smart women.

It seems very normal practice to me, but you seem to believe that's the proof of a high moral standard.

 

[DM07]

Just now, Becker said:

That's not an extensive list. I can easily add a couple of points:

 

3. He likes to look at them. I mean he might really like to look at them.

 

4. He's obviously a very sensitive guy so might be more comfortable in the presence of women.

 

 

I would have "liked" and "laughed"...if that were possible!

Well done, sir!

[Grouse]

Indeed, he is still unsuitable

[Grouse]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Kavanaugh seeks new tone after Supreme Court fight; Trump apologises for process

By Jeff Mason

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to put a bruising confirmation battle behind him on Monday at a White House ceremony in which President Donald Trump declared him innocent of sexual misconduct and apologised for the heated process.

 

"On behalf of our nation, I want to apologise to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure," Trump said at the start of a ceremonial swearing-in in the East Room of the White House.

 

"Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception," he said.

 

Kavanaugh's confirmation process exploded in controversy after California university professor Christine Blasey Ford went public with allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, while they were in high school.

 

Kavanaugh gave a forceful, emotional denial of those allegations during testimony before lawmakers that some Democrats said showed a lack of judicial temperament. The U.S. Senate voted 50-48 on Saturday to confirm him, with just one Democrat supporting him.

 

Kavanaugh said on Monday that he was starting his new job without bitterness, seeking to set a new tone after the divisive process.

 

"The Senate confirmation process was contentious and emotional. That process is over. My focus now is to be the best justice I can be," he said with his wife and children standing nearby.

 

He said he would aim to be a force for stability and unity on the court, whose other eight members all attended the White House ceremony.

 

"Although the Senate confirmation process tested me as it has tested others, it did not change me," he said.

 

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Additional reporting by Eric Beech, David Alexander and Mohammad Zargham; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-10-09

It was a job interview NOT a trial

 

Was he the best candidate beyond reasonable doubt?

 

Are there really no Americans more suitable? Really?

 

How embarrassing for y'all!

 

I would have thought ALL Americans would want an impartial Supreme Court judge above partisan politics 

[Nyezhov]

Truly schoolyard. Thank god so many of the folks chiming in arent American.

[atyclb]

8 hours ago, DM07 said:

Oh...so he is still a drunkard misogynist with anger issues and a possible sexual offender!

You be you, boo!

 

 

ROFLMAO

[atyclb]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

3 hours ago, DM07 said:

Did you know, that Roy Moore's lawyer is a Jew?

 

Kavanaugh could have a million reasons, to have a bunch of female assistents.

Some, I really don't want to think about, in the light of the allegations of sexual assault.

Others might be, that women still get payed less than men.

Another could be, that he enjoys commanding around women.

Who knows?

But for you, it is a given, that he hired them, because he is a good guy and a feminist at heart!

And that is simply pathetic!

 

And now...please...take your silly little theory and run with it!

 

Why would Roy Moores  Jewish lawyer have anything to do with anything? 

 

So your contention is that he hires clerks for:

 

a. He does it for sex assault. Yet none of his clerks have come forward.

b. He can pay them less. Unfortunately for you, he doesnt set pay rates, and all clerks are paid equally.

c.  He likes to boss women around. Yet his clerks have said nothing bad about him, and have universally supported him.

 

Yet you call my rationale that he is a supports women lawyers "pathetic"?   Clearly, you know more about Associate Justice Kavanaugh than his clerks do....

 

OK. Right. I think you should give up as your posts are becoming desperate, as well as increasingly foolish.

 

 

reason and logic is often futile on these forums

[atyclb]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Kavanaugh has had three separate accusations of misconduct by women. The age of those accusations is irrelevant. The fact that it is a multiple is, because it indicates a pattern. There are probably more women who have not come forward, because of the adversarial nature of the legal process.

Let's suppose for a moment you have been anally raped by another male. How motivated would you be to seek justice, knowing what the legal system in America does to victims?

My objection to Kavanaugh is not based on whether he is a Trump appointee. It's based on the office he is going to assume, as it flouts the principle Caesar's wife should be beyond suspicion.

 

"Happy soap bubbles dancing doesn't make it Oxyclean". Congratulations, you've just encapsulated the argument against Kavanaugh's confirmation.

You could try bleach instead, although some stains just won't come out, if you catch my drift.

 

he could have had 500 accusers but then that annoying abstract concept known as corroboration comes into play not even mentioning the presumption of innocence and burden of proof on the accuser, and these concepts hold true for anyone, male, female, dem, rep, etc etc

Edited October 9, 2018 by atyclb

[Grouse]

26 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Truly schoolyard. Thank god so many of the folks chiming in arent American.

To whom are you responding?

[Grouse]

16 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

he could have had 500 accusers but then that annoying abstract concept known as corroboration comes into play not even mentioning the presumption of innocence and burden of proof on the accuser, and these concepts hold true for anyone, male, female, dem, rep, etc etc

It was an interview NOT a trial! Is he the best you've got? Dear god ????

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

So you consider all 3 credible? 

 

PS I cant use bleach on them the little label says no bleach. But a little dish detergent worked!

Sigh. Their credibility can't be determined because the FBI passed up on interviewing them.

[Lacessit]

25 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

 

reason and logic is often futile on these forums

You're right there. Naturally, you exclude yourself from that criticism.

[atyclb]

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

It was an interview NOT a trial! Is he the best you've got? Dear god ????

 

the precepts hold true. if they did not hold true there would have been zero need to look for corroboration, interview witnesses, etc etc.

 

just tell him he's been accused so simply step down.

 

this new way of thinking that if any woman accuses a man of sexual assault she is automatically credible and the man is not and should simply resign or withdraw.

Edited October 9, 2018 by atyclb

[Lacessit]

24 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

he could have had 500 accusers but then that annoying abstract concept known as corroboration comes into play not even mentioning the presumption of innocence and burden of proof on the accuser, and these concepts hold true for anyone, male, female, dem, rep, etc etc

Did you even bother to read my post before you jumped in with this twaddle? Kavanaugh was not on trial. He was attending Senate hearings whose aim should have been to assess his fitness for high office. He wasn't going to jail if he didn't get that post.

He can't deny getting drunk in his youth. Anyone who says it's never happened to them, on the basis of statistical probabilities, is an outright liar. So how could he recall what he did when he was drunk?

As I said before, Caesar's wife must be beyond suspicion. The fact he is now installed as a Supreme Court judge indicates that piece of Roman wisdom has been put aside by morally bankrupt politicians. Apologies for the tautology.

[Nyezhov]

41 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Sigh. Their credibility can't be determined because the FBI passed up on interviewing them.

Oh how silly 55555????

 

The FBI doesnt determine credibility. Guess you have never seen a 302.

[Nyezhov]

39 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

the precepts hold true. if they did not hold true there would have been zero need to look for corroboration, interview witnesses, etc etc.

 

just tell him he's been accused so simply step down.

 

this new way of thinking that if any woman accuses a man of sexual assault she is automatically credible and the man is not and should simply resign or withdraw.

Actually...in their view...ALL accusations are credible..... shhhh.... as long as it is a President Trump appointee.

 

 

[farcanell]

7 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Well I guess his 4 female law clerks will find out. Never been 4 female law clerks for a Supreme Court justice before. Hey one is black too....thats as many as Justice Ginsburg has had.

 

Now you can look at it two ways:

 

1. Because he has daughters, he sincerely believes in promoting the interests of women to ensure that his kids can live life on an equal playing field. Clerking for a Justice of the Supreme Court is a fast track to better things, such as Judgeships and Senior Partnerships where women are underrepresented,

 

or

 

2. He is a filthy mysoginistic rapist who puts women in positions of power so that he can degrade them sexually to satisfy his disgusting drunken urges of lust and fornication.....

 

Now he has had tons of female law clerks in the past, I know that they are ready to come forward to testify about the Max Hardcore scenes in his chambers, yeah Daddy, yeah.....hello? Hello? *crickets*

Your mistake is in suggesting it can only be one of two ways.... that just doesn’t make sense.

 

why women?

 

well... let’s look at that.... Kav was strident in the fact that he likes beer ( disturbingly strident, given the job he was interviewing for, but that’s an aside).... and he still drinks beer

 

kav likes women... always has assumedly, so he wants beer.... Sorry... women around him, I would think that far from unusual, and perfectly understandable of a sexual predator

 

but that’s not really the issue, imo... the issue is in his suitability, which is flawed in multiple ways

 

his nomination was devisive... historically so... which should not be the case in the selection of a Supreme Court judge.

 

he is obviously partisan, which should disqualify him

 

he was extremely disrespectful (probably historically so) towards US senators, in an open forum, which should disqualify him

 

He lied under oath about things other than sexual molestation.... (everyone sees that as an uncorraborated he said she said... which it will remain, unless a transparent investigation is done)... he lied, even if only about underaged drinking. Judges shouldn’t be proven liars.

 

Hanging your hat on an issue, which is unprovable given political interference in the investigation, is extremely biased... big picture time.

 

try a different detergent, if the one you’ve got, doesn’t suit its purpose, or leaves sum stains on your frock.

 

 

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/brett-kavanaugh-hired-four-women-law-clerks-no-accident-looked-like-models

[utalkin2me]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

It was a job interview NOT a trial

 

Was he the best candidate beyond reasonable doubt?

 

Are there really no Americans more suitable? Really?

 

How embarrassing for y'all!

 

I would have thought ALL Americans would want an impartial Supreme Court judge above partisan politics 

The very stable genius appointed him. Nothing the people could do. In fact, we even voted against the very stable genius as a whole in the election. 

 

The stable genius' plan was to stabilize with his pick. When Roe v Wade gets overturned he is going to sit back and enjoy the stability that causes too. 

 

 

[farcanell]

29 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

I’m bad... I laughed.