Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Trump Nominee expected on Saturday

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

That's fair.

Unless I'm missing something we have her word against his.

I've seen people on TV and have read people from his past that love him and say no way he could do this, some say he drank and got belligerent. So I can't take anything either

You ready to disqualify any candidate who has an accusation or a few accusations with no hard proof?

I’m fine with disqualifying Kavanaugh and waiting to see if this becomes a trend where every candidate is accused. Take them one by one until there’s evidence that false accusations are being used for political purposes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Lol. K.  I know this is hard for you.  Just think, you’ll get a conservative Judge on the SC no matter what.  So take comfort in that. 

Not hard at all.  I will just wait for the results of the FBI investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dgreen said:

I’m fine with disqualifying Kavanaugh and waiting to see if this becomes a trend where every candidate is accused. Take them one by one until there’s evidence that false accusations are being used for political purposes. 

Nominate a conservative woman.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Insomniac said:

Clearly one of the two people is not telling the truth about what happened. There's no video tape and it's quite possible that nobody in the house would have noticed except the people in the room so there may never be any additional direct evidence. To me her testimony was much more credible than his. She appeared to attempt to answer the questions from the "hostile" questioner ( hostile in terms of her clearly being on the GOP side and trying to discredit Dr Ford, I had no problem with her tone of questioning)  Kavanaugh OTOH made several statements I thought were obviously untrue and for the most part dodged questions while consistently running the clock out on the Democratic questioners with long winded irrelevant stories.

By legal standards is that alone enough to conclude by preponderance of the evidence that Dr Ford is telling the truth?

There is a third option:  BK could legitimately hold the belief that he did not do this (which would mean he is not lying).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A decent summation of my thoughts:

 

KAVANAUGH’S APPARENT WILLINGNESS to perjure himself over accusations of underage drinking or sexual innuendo — which, alone, don’t necessarily bear on his suitability for the bench — is troubling both because of what it implies about his integrity, and because of what it suggests about his reasoning as an adjudicator.

How should we judge someone who, during his testimony, repeatedly misrepresented facts and dissembled when pressed for detail? Should we understand these moments as lies, or as misinterpretations rooted in substandard analytical rigor? And given the importance of the position at hand, which is worse?

Some of this may seem like parsing hairs, but the law, in large part, is parsing hairs. Easy questions don’t make it to the Supreme Court. Slam dunk cases settle out. Outside of constitutional issues, the Supreme Court only agrees to hear cases that are so subject to interpretation, they’ve been inconsistently decided between states or federal circuits. Analytical precision, therefore, is a big part of the job. 

 

Honestly, the more I think about Kavanaugh's testimony, the more certain I am that he is not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice - he cheapens the institution just by his association.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dgreen said:

You ready to disqualify any candidate who has an accusation or a few accusations with no hard proof?

I said before last Thursday that I would not vote to disconfirm Kavanaugh just based on an accusation. (I would have voted to disconfirm him for other reasons.)

We have more than just an accusation now, though. We have an accusation that's been subjected to cross-examination under oath. We've had a chance to evaluate her memory of events, her credibility as a witness, the consistency of her statements with the timeline of outside events (a second front door, Mark Judge's employment at Safeway, etc). And we've also had a chance to evaluate Kavanaugh's testimony.

After all that, I can't vote to convict Kavanaugh of a crime, but I can emphatically vote to disconfirm his nomination to the Supreme Court ... if I were a Senator, I mean.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sweet J said:

I do not agree with your post. Particularly the second, and maybe even the third, paragraph. I want to give you an alternate theory, and I hope you will reconsider. 

I believe he was very very drunk. So his judgment was very impaired. I believe because of his impairment, he thought or assumed that SHE was very very drunk. 

I believe that he fully intended to have penatrative sex with her while she was essentially incapacitated. Which most of us would agree would be rape. I don’t think he would consider that rape. Not at 18, if the reports of his behavior and attitudes are correct. 

But I don’t believe he intended to have the TV-variety cliched “hold her down and rip off her clothes while she is crying and fighting” rape. THAT’S the rape that you describe in your first paragraph. And you do a disservice if you think that that is the only kind of rape (I don’t think you do). 

I think when it became apperent that he wasn’t going to get away with the “penetrate a drunkenly incapacitated girl” rape, he (or more likely, Mark Judge) saw the writing on the wall and gave up, letting her run away. 

But make no mistake— if I’m right, and he was intending to “have sex” with a girl who did not have the capacity to concent, that’s attempted rape. 

You may be correct.  I would not argue against your theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I said before last Thursday that I would not vote to disconfirm Kavanaugh just based on an accusation. (I would have voted to disconfirm him for other reasons.)

We have more than just an accusation now, though. We have an accusation that's been subjected to cross-examination under oath. We've had a chance to evaluate her memory of events, her credibility as a witness, the consistency of her statements with the timeline of outside events (a second front door, Mark Judge's employment at Safeway, etc). And we've also had a chance to evaluate Kavanaugh's testimony.

After all that, I can't vote to convict Kavanaugh of a crime, but I can emphatically vote to disconfirm his nomination to the Supreme Court ... if I were a Senator, I mean.

this.  I still think some people are saying it has to be proven that BK did this, but I think that's impossible at this point unless either he or Mark Judge confesses.  this is not a criminal trial.  I don't need beyond a reasonable doubt to keep this guy off SCOTUS.  Even the slightest doubt should be enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

No, I get what you’re talking about but this wasn’t that.  Even a good dude can act shamefully under certain circumstances.  That’s part of what rang so hollow to me when Kavanaugh talked about all the women that supported him.

Now that I’ve talked about this a few times I’m afraid you guys will think I’m a straight up rapist, so lemme give a brief description of the two events:

1) I was sleeping over at my friend’s house.  His sister that is a year older also had a friend sleeping over.  I guess we were annoying them and somehow they agreed to something like “five minutes in heaven” in exchange for us leaving them alone the whole night.  Even though my buddy’s sister was pushing my hands away and generally resisting, I spent what seems like a long time just grabbing her breasts and ###.

2) Class trip to an amusement park to celebrate the end of middle school.  Went on the “Tunnel of Love” ride with a girl that had a crush on me.  In the dark, same sorta deal as before.  I was grabbing and grabbing and she was resisting but I wouldn’t stop.

I want to thank you and Henry for these posts.  I’d been hoping to read something like this.  Maybe that sounds weird.  But during the last week, as well as during the advent of the metoo movement, I’ve been bothered by the fact that women seem to lay bare their experiences with no similar output from men.

In each of the experiences that women describe, there is at least one other participant.  I’d like to hear from them, too.  Sure, I understand the reasons that men don’t come forward with their stories:

They’re embarrassed. Guess what?  So are the victims who tell their stories.

They feel shame.  So do the victims.

They are afraid of being criticized for their actions.  So are the victims.  

They are afraid of people thinking less of them.  So are the victims.

They are afraid of retaliation.  So are the victims.

(And as we’ve seen in public discourse, including this thread, over the past week, there is good reason for the victims to feel all of this.)

I guess in the instance of the men involved, in some cases there can also be a fear of legal consequences, though usually that would not be the case.

So why are so many victims coming forward but so few men coming out with their stories?  I’d guess a couple of things are in play:

1.    To me we’ve been treating everything as if there is a bright line of acceptable v. unacceptable behavior, with everything on the unacceptable side being lumped together as horrible.  We aren’t treating these situations with enough nuance or understanding of particular facts and circumstances.  What you and Henry have described could be put in the “unacceptable” bucket, but does that mean you’re bad guys, now or at the time?  I don’t think so.  But it’s easier for people just to look at everything in black and white terms.  You did stuff that was over the line; therefore you are as bad as Bill Cosby, it seems some people would say.  And so that fear keeps people from sharing their experiences and learning from them.  

2.    In evaluating unpleasantries, it’s human nature to want to see a “them” that you can distinguish yourself from.   As an example, people are always getting lost or falling off mountains and dying out here, and I see in my hiking groups that there’s a rush to say that a person did this or that wrong.  We do that because we want to believe it would never happen to us, even though to a certain extent it’s luck and chance.  In the context of sexual assaults, of course every guy wants to look at someone who’s done something wrong and say, “That’s not me.”  Critically evaluating your own actions, past and present, is difficult or even painful for anyone.  We don't help matters by automatically defaulting to a "victim good/assaulter bad" mindset as described above.

I've a lot more to say but just realized this is novel length already.  What I really want to emphasize is to thank you guys.  We say victims are brave for speaking out, but you're equally brave for doing so as well.

Edited by krista4
  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

Clearly one of the two people is not telling the truth about what happened. There's no video tape and it's quite possible that nobody in the house would have noticed except the people in the room 

Really?

she goes up to use the bathroom, followed by loud music...a couple of football players bouncing off of the ground/ceiling, they come down laughing and and the girl locks herself in the bathroom and abruptly leaves...that may be a regular Tuesday for you, but I think most people present at a small gathering would notice....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't think there's any way around assessing the credibility of Kavanaugh's testimony from Thursday.

The FBI will try to evaluate evidence, both incriminating and exculpatory, pertaining to whether Kavanaugh committed sexual assault many years ago. A big part of that evidence consists of (a) Ford's testimony that he did, and (b) Kavanaugh's denial of the same.

Assessing the credibility of Kavanaugh's denial is therefore a necessary part of evaluating whether he committed sexual assault. And assessing the credibility of Kavanaugh's statements about his yearbook, his drinking habits, etc., are all part of assessing his general truthfulness, which is a big part of evaluating his specific denials.

So I think the FBI will scrutinize his statements about Renate and such.

Speaking of Renate, here's one thing that bugs me about that story. Kavanaugh testified that it's pronounced reh-NAH-tah. Like, sort of rhymes with piñata, or carne asada. So the stanza from the other guy's yearbook -- "When it's getting late and you need a date, don't hesitate, call Renate" -- that seems really stupid, right?

Getting confirmed by the Senate

Don't obfuscate

about dates with Renate

your critics to placate

 

 

I was riding in my Sonata

with a girl named Renate

whose last name I forgota

after we danced the lambada.  

 

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, krista4 said:

 We say victims are brave for speaking out, but you're equally brave for doing so as well.

Thanks but not sure how brave it is in the relative anonymity of FBGs.  Sorry to put you in the position of speaking for two women you’ve never met but what do you think their reaction would be if I contacted them now, over 30 years later, to apologize?  I found one of them on Facebook really easily, didn’t see the other one but might be able to find her  with a little digging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Thanks but not sure how brave it is in the relative anonymity of FBGs.  Sorry to put you in the position of speaking for two women you’ve never met but what do you think their reaction would be if I contacted them now, over 30 years later, to apologize?  I found one of them on Facebook really easily, didn’t see the other one but might be able to find her  with a little digging.

Any response? Is she married?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

What a surprise. The face of the Democratic Party. :yucky:

Just want to note that you accept this as true without any question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Any response? Is she married?

I just found her profile I haven’t reached out.  This is the sister of my friend from the time.  She’s married with a cute daughter of her own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Just want to note that you accept this as true without any question. 

And how many facesof the party do they have?  Every few weeks conservatives name a new one.  Stormy, Ocasio-Cortez...I’m sure Ellison will be called that as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't want to say that Kavanaugh covered her mouth in a playful, joking, friendly, non-threatening, good-natured way. But in the abstract, it is possible to cover a person's mouth in that manner. And it is possible for it to be misconstrued.

Christine Blasey said she thought he might inadvertently kill her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bradyfan said:

Christine Blasey said she thought he might inadvertently kill her.

Depending on how drunk and strong he was, she may have honestly believed that, even though he honestly didn’t intend that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I just found her profile I haven’t reached out.  This is the sister of my friend from the time.  She’s married with a cute daughter of her own.

That’s a tricky one man.....your intentions are in the right place but with a husband involved and dredging up these old events could be a can of worms.  In her shoes I wonder if she appreciates an apology or it’s part of the past she doesn’t want brought up........keep us updated. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Thanks but not sure how brave it is in the relative anonymity of FBGs.  Sorry to put you in the position of speaking for two women you’ve never met but what do you think their reaction would be if I contacted them now, over 30 years later, to apologize?  I found one of them on Facebook really easily, didn’t see the other one but might be able to find her  with a little digging.

If it were me...I'd be surprised but appreciative.  It would give me some optimism to see that at least some people are taking these matters seriously.  Given I don't know them at all, though, I don't know if they would react similarly.

That doesn't mean I think you should contact them.  I'm only answering the question you posed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dedfin said:

If the Ds ever control Congress again (I have serious doubts), then they should consider removing him from whatever bench he occupies. He has no business making important rulings, or even unimportant ones.

That would take 67 Senators. But if SCOTUS is no longer in play, I imagine BK will go to a place like Gibson Dunn and earn 15x more than he would on the DC Circuit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

That would take 67 Senators. But if SCOTUS is no longer in play, I imagine BK will go to a place like Gibson Dunn and earn 15x more than he would on the DC Circuit. 

Unless he is also disbarred....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

How many cases has the FBI solved that are over 30 years old without DNA, video, or documented evidence from the initial investigation? 

I am genuinely curious if there are some examples. 

Not sure...but they don’t have to solve this case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Not sure...but they don’t have to solve this case.

 

Not in your view, which is fine. Other people have different thoughts on the matter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, parasaurolophus said:

Not in your view, which is fine. Other people have different thoughts on the matter. 

True...I don’t think being told it’s highly likely he perjured himself will stop the GOP from voting for him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rove! said:

Really?

she goes up to use the bathroom, followed by loud music...a couple of football players bouncing off of the ground/ceiling, they come down laughing and and the girl locks herself in the bathroom and abruptly leaves...that may be a regular Tuesday for you, but I think most people present at a small gathering would notice....

Do you remember every party you attended where there was a ruckus in another room?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I still think it’s more likely than not that Kavanaugh gets appointed to the Supreme Court. 

But how can Christine Blasey move to New Zealand without flying on a plane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bradyfan said:

But how can Christine Blasey move to New Zealand without flying on a plane?

Did you think this was witty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, whoknew said:

White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh

What a shocking development. I don't think anyone could have seen that coming.

Can’t ask about Judges supermarket (which could verify a part if Fords) testimony ) ...drinking claims off limits too it seems.

Hey guys...lets limit anything that might show she was truthful and he was committing perjury.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, whoknew said:

White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh

What a shocking development. I don't think anyone could have seen that coming.

Quote

The FBI has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, a White House official confirmed to NBC News.

But they are investigating Debbie Ramirez.

Just confirm him and end this sham

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Matthias said:

I'm not sure what his outside options would be. No matter what he'd be fine. But he could be forced to do some think tank versus law firm. Or some lesser, ideological firm vs a more major one.

Secretly - I hoping in a few years the Dems stack the Supreme Court, and Kavanaugh lives out his life as a bitter old man writing nothing but dissenting opinions, and largely ignored by society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bradyfan said:

I am sincerely worried about her.

I am sincerely worried about our country and the institutions within this country and our global standing. Each of these have been deteriorated by Trump and what has been happening.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badmojo1006 said:

But they are investigating Debbie Ramirez.

Just confirm him and end this sham

Ha, agreed......wouldn’t that be nice. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bradyfan said:

But how can Christine Blasey move to New Zealand without flying on a plane?

Slow boat to China that gets blown off course?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BK clearly has a drinking problem.

I just watched his opening statement and the guy must have guzzled a gallon of water.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.