What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Brett Kavanaugh (2 Viewers)

Would your answer to # 2 be any different if BK was a liberal judge appointed by Barrack Obama?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 7.0%
  • No

    Votes: 212 93.0%

  • Total voters
    228
Can I get some more context for question #3?  Is the assumption that if the liar got voted down, a different liberal judge would take his place?  Or is there a possibility that vacancy might end up getting filled by a conservative judge?

 
I thought that the title of this thread referred to some personal information you might have about Brett Kavanaugh (which while I’m not the least bit interested in, wouldn’t surprise me at all.) 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can I get some more context for question #3?  Is the assumption that if the liar got voted down, a different liberal judge would take his place?  Or is there a possibility that vacancy might end up getting filled by a conservative judge?
To me that would make no difference.

I hold the SC Justices to a very high standard - in terms of integrity.  If Kavanaugh was a liberal judge, and the alternative was Gorsuch.  I'd support the Gorsuch bid.

Kavanaugh is wholly unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court - no matter what you think happened between him and Dr. Ford.

 
To me that would make no difference.

I hold the SC Justices to a very high standard - in terms of integrity.  If Kavanaugh was a liberal judge, and the alternative was Gorsuch.  I'd support the Gorsuch bid.

Kavanaugh is wholly unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court - no matter what you think happened between him and Dr. Ford.
I agree that it should not.  But I’m not perfect.

 
I thought that the title of this thread referred to some personal information you might have about Brett Kavanaugh (which while I’m not the least bit interested in, wouldn’t surprise me at all.) 
something about a joke and a frog

thanks, tim

 
Yes, No, No.

The pole is flawed.

Basically I expect every politician and sc justice to lie, have lied, or have skeletons in their closet. The degree of those transgressions would effect my answer to #2. 

 
Yes, No, No.

The pole is flawed.

Basically I expect every politician and sc justice to lie, have lied, or have skeletons in their closet. The degree of those transgressions would effect my answer to #2. 
So okay to lie to the senate judiciary committee in your confirmation hearing to the SC so long as they are just small lies?

 
Yes, No, No.

The pole is flawed.

Basically I expect every politician and sc justice to lie, have lied, or have skeletons in their closet. The degree of those transgressions would effect my answer to #2. 
That, to me, is a sad outlook - specifically as it relates to Supreme Court Justices.

Even for politicians, I would distinguish between campaign "promises" and outright dishonesty.  

I can live with skeletons in the closet - I really struggle with allowing a liar into a position of trust.*

*And, by lying, I mean intentional deceit, and not simply "puffing" or exaggerating.  As I look at Kavanaugh - I think he was probably exaggerating some of his high school exploits in the yearbook.  No problem for me.  I think he is intentionally lying about some of those things now - and that bothers me.  (I think he has lied about more serious matters - and for me an automatic disqualification, but even his willingness to lie about the small stuff says a lot about his character).

 
So okay to lie to the senate judiciary committee in your confirmation hearing to the SC so long as they are just small lies?
Lying about how much you drank in high school and lying about sexually assaulting a classmate are two different things. (see explanation below)

That, to me, is a sad outlook - specifically as it relates to Supreme Court Justices.

Even for politicians, I would distinguish between campaign "promises" and outright dishonesty.  

I can live with skeletons in the closet - I really struggle with allowing a liar into a position of trust.*

*And, by lying, I mean intentional deceit, and not simply "puffing" or exaggerating.  As I look at Kavanaugh - I think he was probably exaggerating some of his high school exploits in the yearbook.  No problem for me.  I think he is intentionally lying about some of those things now - and that bothers me.  (I think he has lied about more serious matters - and for me an automatic disqualification, but even his willingness to lie about the small stuff says a lot about his character).
It's the world we live in. I think we have an unreasonable expectation for our politicians. We can't even have an expectation for a priest to keep his hands to himself and he believes he answers to a divine power. Whether it's Kavanaugh, Trump, Obama, or you. I think everyone lies to protect their position. Especially when backed into a corner.

We've had two SC nominees go through a sexual harassment allegation during confirmation. Based on a general understanding of society over the past 50 years, do you think that non of the other SC Justices could be guilty of crossing a line when it comes to behavior that would be questioned? 

What we are left with, is making decisions based on what we know. We don't know the history of all other Justice's, so we assume the best of them. We may get more facts on Kavanaugh, which will allow me to make a more informed decision. As much as I think that he lied, I don't have any proof. If some becomes available, I will change my stance based on those findings. 

 
We've had two SC nominees go through a sexual harassment allegation during confirmation. Based on a general understanding of society over the past 50 years, do you think that non of the other SC Justices could be guilty of crossing a line when it comes to behavior that would be questioned? 
I missed the sexual harassment allegations against Gorsuch, Or Kagan, or Sotomayor, or Alito, or Breyer, or Ginsburg, or Roberts (or Kennedy or Scalia).

I think there are numerous qualified jurists who are capable of sitting on the Supreme Court who are honest, decent, humans in addition to having sharp legal minds.  And, I think we owe it to our county to do our very best to find those jurists - no matter which side of the aisle you sit on.

 
What we are left with, is making decisions based on what we know. We don't know the history of all other Justice's, so we assume the best of them. We may get more facts on Kavanaugh, which will allow me to make a more informed decision. As much as I think that he lied, I don't have any proof. If some becomes available, I will change my stance based on those findings. 
I have enough proof of Kavanaughs veracity, temperament, and independence to know with 100% certainty that he is unfit for the position.  I don't need to "know" anything about his encounter, or lack thereof, with Dr. Ford.

 
I missed the sexual harassment allegations against Gorsuch, Or Kagan, or Sotomayor, or Alito, or Breyer, or Ginsburg, or Roberts (or Kennedy or Scalia).

I think there are numerous qualified jurists who are capable of sitting on the Supreme Court who are honest, decent, humans in addition to having sharp legal minds.  And, I think we owe it to our county to do our very best to find those jurists - no matter which side of the aisle you sit on.
If there is one thing we have learned this week is that victims are reluctant to come forward. Are you 100% confident that no other member of the SC hasn't stepped over a line at some point in their life? Keep in mind, I referenced the last 50 years. Times have changed, but they were much worse back then. 

 
I have enough proof of Kavanaughs veracity, temperament, and independence to know with 100% certainty that he is unfit for the position.  I don't need to "know" anything about his encounter, or lack thereof, with Dr. Ford.
That's your opinion. And I respect that. 

If you have 100% proof, then shouldn't the FBI have some as well? 

 
Lying about how much you drank in high school and lying about sexually assaulting a classmate are two different things. (see explanation below)

It's the world we live in. I think we have an unreasonable expectation for our politicians. We can't even have an expectation for a priest to keep his hands to himself and he believes he answers to a divine power. Whether it's Kavanaugh, Trump, Obama, or you. I think everyone lies to protect their position. Especially when backed into a corner.

We've had two SC nominees go through a sexual harassment allegation during confirmation. Based on a general understanding of society over the past 50 years, do you think that non of the other SC Justices could be guilty of crossing a line when it comes to behavior that would be questioned? 

What we are left with, is making decisions based on what we know. We don't know the history of all other Justice's, so we assume the best of them. We may get more facts on Kavanaugh, which will allow me to make a more informed decision. As much as I think that he lied, I don't have any proof. If some becomes available, I will change my stance based on those findings. 
Supreme Court Justices are politicians?

I saw Kavanaugh do his best impression of one, but I don't think that's the role he's supposed to be playing.  

 
Supreme Court Justices are politicians?

I saw Kavanaugh do his best impression of one, but I don't think that's the role he's supposed to be playing.  
They're not priests either. 

You ask for people to answer truthfully. I did. See what it gets you.

 
If there is one thing we have learned this week is that victims are reluctant to come forward. Are you 100% confident that no other member of the SC hasn't stepped over a line at some point in their life? Keep in mind, I referenced the last 50 years. Times have changed, but they were much worse back then. 
There is at least a small chance that yes, one of them has stepped over a line. If someone was to come forward with credible accusations I would want an investigation. And if that investigation showed sexual misconduct, regardless. of the decade, I would want that justice removed. 

What is your point anyway?

 
There is at least a small chance that yes, one of them has stepped over a line. If someone was to come forward with credible accusations I would want an investigation. And if that investigation showed sexual misconduct, regardless. of the decade, I would want that justice removed. 

What is your point anyway?
The bolded is my point. 

 
Arguing that it’s ok if an SC Justice lied under oath...I mean really.  How hard is it to just say that isn’t a good thing?
If we have proof that the someone lied under oath, then he/she committed perjury and the laws will take over. At this point, do we have proof that someone lied under oath?

I'm sorry I forced you guys to pull your heads out of the sand. You're probably so angry at the state of this country because you assume everyone is telling you the truth. They are not. 

 
Yes, No, No.

The pole is flawed.

Basically I expect every politician and sc justice to lie, have lied, or have skeletons in their closet. The degree of those transgressions would effect my answer to #2. 


If we have proof that the someone lied under oath, then he/she committed perjury and the laws will take over. At this point, do we have proof that someone lied under oath?

I'm sorry I forced you guys to pull your heads out of the sand. You're probably so angry at the state of this country because you assume everyone is telling you the truth. They are not. 
We aren’t talking about proof.  We are talking your words where you stated you expect them to lie.

And thisnoull our heads out of the sand and not being able to understand what others are saying is why this will be the last time I reply to you.  Just utter crap.

 
We aren’t talking about proof.  We are talking your words where you stated you expect them to lie.

And thisnoull our heads out of the sand and not being able to understand what others are saying is why this will be the last time I reply to you.  Just utter crap.
Sho nuff wait....sorry you can't handle the truth. 

You guys should stop asking people for their opinions when you don't want to hear them.

 
The pole should be fixed. 

Question 1 and 2 should only have one choice. Yes. 

Question 3 should only have one choice. No. 

Everyone who participates gets a trophy!

 
KCitons said:
sho nuff said:
We aren’t talking about proof.  We are talking your words where you stated you expect them to lie.

And thisnoull our heads out of the sand and not being able to understand what others are saying is why this will be the last time I reply to you.  Just utter crap.
Sho nuff wait....sorry you can't handle the truth. 

You guys should stop asking people for their opinions when you don't want to hear them.
So, to summarize your argument: "Yes, I believe he lied.  If we had proof he lied it's a criminal offense. If he purposely lied, it shouldn't stop him from being on the SC. You guys who think it should keep him off  the Court ignore the truth."  Is that it?

 
KCitons said:
Sho nuff wait....sorry you can't handle the truth. 

You guys should stop asking people for their opinions when you don't want to hear them.
You're entitled to any opinion you want, but when it's fraught with mental gymnastics (It's not that big a deal that a nominee commits perjury during his interview for one of the highest and ethically demanding positions in our country?) and untruths (SC Justices are politicians and we should just expect them to lie?) then expect to be called out on them.     

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple Jack said:
Being casual with the truth under oath is not something a SC judge can do. It's not that difficult to understand.
It's not something any judge can do.

How can a judge preside over trials where testimony is paramount and the concept of telling the truth under oath is sacred, and not do the same himself?

It undermines the system.

 
So, to summarize your argument: "Yes, I believe he lied.  If we had proof he lied it's a criminal offense. If he purposely lied, it shouldn't stop him from being on the SC. You guys who think it should keep him off  the Court ignore the truth."  Is that it?
Yep. I believe he (and everyone else that interviews for a job) to lie during the interview process. The extent of those lies is what determines whether or not I would still approve him for seat on the SC. These are my statements. 

Basically I expect every politician and sc justice to lie, have lied, or have skeletons in their closet. The degree of those transgressions would effect my answer to #2.
Lying about how much you drank in high school and lying about sexually assaulting a classmate are two different things.


The real question is, why do care so much about my opinion? I don't approve SC justices, so what difference does it make? I've been honest about my opinion of politicians, public figures, and people in general. They all lie when they have something at stake. I don't expect that to change with someone that holds the title of SC Justice, POTUS, Archbishop, or anything else. 

 
You're entitled to any opinion you want, but when it's fraught with mental gymnastics (It's not that big a deal that a nominee commits perjury during his interview for one of the highest and ethically demanding positions in our country?) and untruths (SC Justices are politicians and we should just expect them to lie?) then expect to be called out on them.     
When you ask for people to be truthful, then expect to have answers you may not agree with. 

 
They all lie when they have something at stake. I don't expect that to change with someone that holds the title of SC Justice, POTUS, Archbishop, or anything else. 
His lies were intended to shut down questions about his sexual activity as a teen and in college, as well as shut down questions about behavior that may have occurred after he had too many drinks.

So he lies about all things related to drinking too much, and sexually-charged interests he expressed as a teen.

All while testifying in response to allegations of sexually related things he was accused of doing after drinking too much.

And these lies don't matter to you?  

 
Yep. I believe he (and everyone else that interviews for a job) to lie during the interview process. The extent of those lies is what determines whether or not I would still approve him for seat on the SC. These are my statements. 

The real question is, why do care so much about my opinion? I don't approve SC justices, so what difference does it make? I've been honest about my opinion of politicians, public figures, and people in general. They all lie when they have something at stake. I don't expect that to change with someone that holds the title of SC Justice, POTUS, Archbishop, or anything else. 
There was one person that didn't feel the need to lie on Thursday.  I wonder why.  

 
When you ask for people to be truthful, then expect to have answers you may not agree with. 
I'm not expecting you to have a certain opinion.  We're just pointing out the flaws in your opinion.  If you don't like that then you shouldn't have put your opinion out there to be critiqued.  

It's like the 'should we teach creationism or evolution in schools' argument.  If you want creationism to be taught in schools in a scientific capacity, you need to do a lot better than, "it's just what I believe."   

 
His lies were intended to shut down questions about his sexual activity as a teen and in college, as well as shut down questions about behavior that may have occurred after he had too many drinks.

So he lies about all things related to drinking too much, and sexually-charged interests he expressed as a teen.

All while testifying in response to allegations of sexually related things he was accused of doing after drinking too much.

And these lies don't matter to you?  
Facts matter. He also said he was not a gang rapist. If facts prove the he was, then he should be removed and prosecuted as such. If he said he never drank in high school and the facts show that he did, then I don't really care.

Are you looking for any reason possible to keep him from getting confirmed? 

 
Facts matter. He also said he was not a gang rapist. If facts prove the he was, then he should be removed and prosecuted as such. If he said he never drank in high school and the facts show that he did, then I don't really care.

Are you looking for any reason possible to keep him from getting confirmed? 
No.  

Major questions came up around his behavior towards women when he was drunk.  Sexually related questions.

This means his attitude and actions surrounding alcohol usage and his views on sex at this age are incredibly relevant in evaluating the legitimacy of claims during this time.

He clearly lied about his views relating to sex (Devils triangle, boofing, etc) as well as being incredibly defensive and lying about his drinking habits at the time.

Why?

On top of that, he became incredibly defensive and partisan in his attacks against what he calls an unfair process.  He singled out democrats, pointed to conspiracies about all of this, and then proceeded to LIE on issues related to these questions.

There are many other judges out there who wouldn't have to do this.  Who don't have a history of drinking like Kavanaugh has.  Who wouldn't resort to partisan conspiracy theories angrily presented while undergoing a job interview for a lifetime appointment on the SC.

Are you looking to ignore any bad behavior by Kavanaugh to get him on the SC?

Why Kavanaugh?  I don't give a damn about him.  All I want is our SC to be filled with the most ethical, brightest, and fair-minded judges our country can offer.  It's clear after this latest round of testimony that Kavanaugh isn't in that echelon.  

 
I'm not expecting you to have a certain opinion.  We're just pointing out the flaws in your opinion.  If you don't like that then you shouldn't have put your opinion out there to be critiqued.  

It's like the 'should we teach creationism or evolution in schools' argument.  If you want creationism to be taught in schools in a scientific capacity, you need to do a lot better than, "it's just what I believe."   
This is different than your example. I don't have any bearing over whether or not Kavanaugh gets approved. You see it as a black and white issue, I see it as shades of grey. I've also pointed out flaws in your opinion. Just because you aren't aware of issues with other SC justices, doesn't mean they don't exist. But, if it gives you a false sense of security that they made it through nomination hearings without lying, then that's ok. 

 
Facts matter. He also said he was not a gang rapist. If facts prove the he was, then he should be removed and prosecuted as such. If he said he never drank in high school and the facts show that he did, then I don't really care.
If he is willing to lie about something as innocuous as drinking, doesn't it at least give you some pause that he may be lying about other stuff?

 
No.  

Major questions came up around his behavior towards women when he was drunk.  Sexually related questions.

This means his attitude and actions surrounding alcohol usage and his views on sex at this age are incredibly relevant in evaluating the legitimacy of claims during this time.

He clearly lied about his views relating to sex (Devils triangle, boofing, etc) as well as being incredibly defensive and lying about his drinking habits at the time.

Why?

On top of that, he became incredibly defensive and partisan in his attacks against what he calls an unfair process.  He singled out democrats, pointed to conspiracies about all of this, and then proceeded to LIE on issues related to these questions.

There are many other judges out there who wouldn't have to do this.  Who don't have a history of drinking like Kavanaugh has.  Who wouldn't resort to partisan conspiracy theories angrily presented while undergoing a job interview for a lifetime appointment on the SC.

Are you looking to ignore any bad behavior by Kavanaugh to get him on the SC?

Why Kavanaugh?  I don't give a damn about him.  All I want is our SC to be filled with the most ethical, brightest, and fair-minded judges our country can offer.  It's clear after this latest round of testimony that Kavanaugh isn't in that echelon.  
I could care less if he gets approved. We just see this process being played out differently. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top