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 (1 Viewer)

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
Zow said:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/09/04/gov-ducey-picks-bill-montgomery-for-arizona-supreme-court/2003186001/

Was unsure where to put this but this hit home with me pretty hard today.  There were some other really good candidates. But, alas, it seems like it's still the political play for Republicans in power to pick controversial/unqualified but clearly right-leaning judges to high positions. 
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh was not controversial or unqualified at the time of his selection.  Dianne Feinstein deliberately sat on the allegations against him until the moment when she could inject the maximum amount of partisan toxicity into the nomination process.

Edit: Also, today is probably not the best day to bump this one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was called every name in the book and had vile hatred directed at me for the suggestion that Ms. Ford was motivated by the politics of abortion.  Seems I was dead on correct.  What a turd and what a liar.  Her identity was intentionally 'leaked' at the 11th hour because she would do anything to stop Kavanaugh.  All the honorable Dems who stood on principle and it was just dirty tricks politics.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Kavanaugh was not controversial or unqualified at the time of his selection.  Dianne Feinstein deliberately sat on the allegations against him until the moment when she could inject the maximum amount of partisan toxicity into the nomination process.

Edit: Also, today is probably not the best day to bump this one.
Click to expand...
I may be missing something but the Fox News take seems like a pretty unfair reading of what the lawyer says. Here's the full quote:
 

“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,” Katz said in the video. “He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important.

"It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”
Click to expand...
I read that as saying that part of what motivated Ford was ensuring that Kavanaugh's true character was known to the public even if his confirmation was all but inevitable. That seems entirely in line with Ford saying she was doing it out of "civic duty," even though the article suggests it's contradictory.  The mention of Roe v Wade seems to be an example/illustration of how this would play out, perhaps chosen because she was speaking at a Feminist Legal Theory conference.  It's really a stretch to suggest that the lawyer is saying that this desire only extended to a potential overturning of Roe, and nothing else.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
I may be missing something but the Fox News take seems like a pretty unfair reading of what the lawyer says. Here's the full quote:
 

I read that as saying that part of what motivated Ford was ensuring that Kavanaugh's true character was known to the public even if his confirmation was all but inevitable. That seems entirely in line with Ford saying she was doing it out of "civic duty," even though the article suggests it's contradictory.  The mention of Roe v Wade seems to be an example/illustration of how this would play out, perhaps chosen because she was speaking at a Feminist Legal Theory conference.  It's really a stretch to suggest that the lawyer is saying that this desire only extended to a potential overturning of Roe, and nothing else.

And in any event, if the argument is that every word Katz says is the unassailable truth that would also mean that the Republicans nominated and confirmed a Supreme Court justice who attempted to rape someone and then lied about it to the Senate and the American people. Which they obviously did, but I don't think they'd want to concede that.
Click to expand...
Not sure about the second half of this but I agree with the first. 

 
That fox news piece provides zero new information. If you believed her, this changes nothing. If you didnt, this isnt some smoking gun, but just reinforces what you already thought. 

I realize i just summed up 99% of what is posted on this board. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Not sure about the second half of this but I agree with the first. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess I mostly just wanted to repeat that Republicans nominated and confirmed a Supreme Court justice who attempted to rape someone and then lied about it to the Senate and the American people. I should have just stuck to criticizing the article. Consider it withdrawn.

 
I don't know if he lied or not and I don't know how anyone other than his accuser could say they know that he did.   However If he did lie then obviously he should have been disqualified.  And that would be true regardless of the president sitting in the oval office.

 
Godsbrother said:
I don't know if he lied or not and I don't know how anyone other than his accuser could say they know that he did.   However If he did lie then obviously he should have been disqualified.  And that would be true regardless of the president sitting in the oval office.
Click to expand...
Oh, he definitely lied.  Here's perhaps the most obvious example:

“One of our good female friends who we would admire and went to dances with had her name used on the yearbook page with the term ‘alumnus.’ That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.”
Click to expand...
This is in reference to the infamous "Renate alumnus" note in his yearbook.  Come on.

Here's more about his horse#### Senate testimony.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Oh, he definitely lied.  Here's perhaps the most obvious example:

This is in reference to the infamous "Renate alumnus" note in his yearbook.  Come on.

Here's more about his horse#### Senate testimony.
Click to expand...
I’m more concerned with his lack of candor regarding memoranda and policy positions while with the Bush II White House. 

 
Henry Ford said:
I’m more concerned with his lack of candor regarding memoranda and policy positions while with the Bush II White House. 
Click to expand...
Absolutely, he was also clearly dishonest about a ton of other, more important subjects. 

The "Renate alumni" thing is just the one that I think is the most obvious and requires the least amount of background.  Every semi-reasonable human being knows exactly what 18 year old Brett Kavanaugh meant when he wrote that ... and and that 53 year old Brett Kavanaugh lied about it to the Senate when has was asked.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Oh, he definitely lied.  Here's perhaps the most obvious example:

This is in reference to the infamous "Renate alumnus" note in his yearbook.  Come on.

Here's more about his horse#### Senate testimony.
Click to expand...
A high school boy making a sexual reference to a female classmate 30+ years ago?  It wasn't right and not something to be proud of as an adult but not something that many, many otherwise fine upstanding men did back in the 70s.    He tried to explain it away with a BS answer but I personally don't think that particular lie should have disqualified him from the SC.

To me the question was there enough evidence that he committed rape and while Ford's testimony was compelling it still came down to he said/she said.

 
Godsbrother said:
A high school boy making a sexual reference to a female classmate 30+ years ago?  It wasn't right and not something to be proud of as an adult but not something that many, many otherwise fine upstanding men did back in the 70s.    He tried to explain it away with a BS answer but I personally don't think that particular lie should have disqualified him from the SC.

To me the question was there enough evidence that he committed rape and while Ford's testimony was compelling it still came down to he said/she said.
Click to expand...
Gonna have to respectfully disagree on that one. I'm of the opinion that any particular lie offered under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee should disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court, given that lying during sworn testimony in front of Congress is a crime. Also, Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices seem seem like a particularly egregious time to lie.

Just to be clear- I don't really care that much about the underlying conduct. I did worse as a teenager and even as a college student, as I'm sure most of us did. But if I got called on it as an adult I would come clean and apologize, even if I wasn't under oath in front of a congressional committee. Kavanaugh did the opposite

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Absolutely, he was also clearly dishonest about a ton of other, more important subjects. 

The "Renate alumni" thing is just the one that I think is the most obvious and requires the least amount of background.  Every semi-reasonable human being knows exactly what 18 year old Brett Kavanaugh meant when he wrote that ... and and that 53 year old Brett Kavanaugh lied about it to the Senate when has was asked.
Click to expand...
Falsehood

 
Godsbrother said:
A high school boy making a sexual reference to a female classmate 30+ years ago?  It wasn't right and not something to be proud of as an adult but not something that many, many otherwise fine upstanding men did back in the 70s.    He tried to explain it away with a BS answer but I personally don't think that particular lie should have disqualified him from the SC.

To me the question was there enough evidence that he committed rape and while Ford's testimony was compelling it still came down to he said/she said.
Click to expand...
Attempted rape. And it wasn’t a criminal court. Confirming someone where there’s a 50/50 shot he’s a liar and attempted rapist is a stain on Congress and the Judiciary. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Godsbrother said:
A high school boy making a sexual reference to a female classmate 30+ years ago?  It wasn't right and not something to be proud of as an adult but not something that many, many otherwise fine upstanding men did back in the 70s.    He tried to explain it away with a BS answer but I personally don't think that particular lie should have disqualified him from the SC.

To me the question was there enough evidence that he committed rape and while Ford's testimony was compelling it still came down to he said/she said.
Click to expand...
Exactly, trying to pin Kavanaugh as a liar because he tried to smooth over his drinking or some childish note is silly.  There was zero compelling evidence to suggest he was lying about Ford.  Ford story is bizzare and has zero collaborating evidence.   Why are there four kids at some unknown house having a party and three of them go to a bedroom and leave the one person alone.  Whose house are they at and why can four kids that don't live there have a party there?  And why wouldn't her friend not remember such a bizarre party?  Ford story smelled of politics from beginning to end.  The leak was absolutely planned and Ford was in on it.  

 
Don't Noonan said:
50/50 shot.  :lmao:
Click to expand...
I understand that you disagree with me, but then I'm at much higher than 50 in my personal belief on that.

I was responding to a post saying it was simply he said/she said.  If you'd like to re-debate the merits of the accusations, you're welcome to do so.  I'm fairly firm in my opinions.

 
jon_mx said:
Ford story smelled of politics from beginning to end.  The leak was absolutely planned and Ford was in on it.  
Click to expand...
when you say 'beginning', you mean in 2005 or whatever year it was where Ford discussed this with her husband and therapist?

damn, this state is deep!

 
jon_mx said:
Exactly, trying to pin Kavanaugh as a liar because he tried to smooth over his drinking or some childish note is silly. 
Click to expand...
I don't want to revisit this stuff because in general I agree with you in the pointlessness - and predictability (because look who believes/disbelieves him/her) - of rehashing the actual claim of assault.

But actually the point you make above is actually what bothers me. The thing that got me was he flashed the calendar and pounded the table how what Ford said was impossible and yet yep there was a party just of the timing and kind she described. In retrospect what really bothers me about him, besides the unjudicial behavior, was his attempt to paint her as a flat out liar. She clearly was in his milieu in high school, knew his friends, knew about his parties. It was falling into league with media partisan hacks that I find really disturbing for a USSC Justice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
That is about the best spin they can put on it.  More like 1 in 100 shot. 
Click to expand...
It is not the best "spin" I can put on it, but rather being willing to take the poster I was responding to's own premise and indicate that I would not be okay with that scenario.

 
jomar said:
when you say 'beginning', you mean in 2005 or whatever year it was where Ford discussed this with her husband and therapist?

damn, this state is deep!
Click to expand...
I was talking when she started the whole plot.  Cleansing here FB profile weeks before visiting Feinstein.  But if you want to go back to 2006, it is funny how for 20 plus years this did not even reach that level where she never mentioned it to a single soul, not even her friend at the alledged party.  At that point, there is no chance her memory is accurate.  Her memory just started when Kavanaugh was beginning to raise up the ranks on a national scale.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
But actually the point you make above is actually what bothers me. The thing that got me was he flashed the calendar and pounded the table how what Ford said was impossible and yet yep there was a party just of the timing and kind she described. In retrospect what really bothers me about him, besides the unjudicial behavior, was his attempt to paint her as a flat out liar. She clearly was in his milieu in high school, knew his friends, knew about his parties. It was falling into league with media partisan hacks that I find really disturbing for a USSC Justice.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah! Well now you are bothering me!!!!!!

She provided such a vague description of events that you could pretty much find any high school kid at the time from the area that had at least a handful of friends and say she described an event they were at. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
Oh yeah! Well now you are bothering me!!!!!!

She provided such a vague description of events that you could pretty much find any high school kid at the time from the area that had at least a handful of friends and say she described an event they were at. 
Click to expand...
What timing?  She only provided like a year.  Yeah, both in high school in the area and liked to party.  He MUST be guilty.  

 
parasaurolophus said:
Oh yeah! Well now you are bothering me!!!!!!

She provided such a vague description of events that you could pretty much find any high school kid at the time from the area that had at least a handful of friends and say she described an event they were at. 
Click to expand...
She described the names of the participants that were shown on the calendar.

 
jon_mx said:
Yeah, 1 is too high. 
Click to expand...
Good one...you really are diving into this one in depth.  If someone thinks there is only a 1 in 100 chance she was assaulted by him...I don't think they paid much attention to her or any of the facts of the case.  Its just hard to fathom being that closed minded about the topic.

Also...the article cited doesn't prove it was all some political thing or that she was lying...that is a pretty illogical conclusion based on what was actually said.

 
jon_mx said:
I was talking when she started the whole plot.  Cleansing here FB profile weeks before visiting Feinstein.  But if you want to go back to 2006, it is funny how for 20 plus years this did not even reach that level where she never mentioned it to a single soul, not even her friend at the alledged party.  At that point, there is no chance her memory is accurate.  Her memory just started when Kavanaugh was beginning to raise up the ranks on a national scale.
Click to expand...
yeah, that must be it.  she saw her old classmate rising up in the ranks and decided to make up a sexual assault story to stop it.  it's so obvious.  and so devious to not spring the plan until he was up for SCOTUS!!  brilliant!

 
jon_mx said:
What timing?  She only provided like a year.  Yeah, both in high school in the area and liked to party.  He MUST be guilty.  
Click to expand...
That’s not correct, she got the time of summer, and iirc she also got it during the week, at a time which BK denied they partied (because they were supposedly working).

I really don’t care what justices did when they were teens. It’s this attempt to portray her as a ‘total’ liar for talking point purposes that I’m talking about.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Oh yeah! Well now you are bothering me!!!!!!

She provided such a vague description of events that you could pretty much find any high school kid at the time from the area that had at least a handful of friends and say she described an event they were at. 
Click to expand...
You hide it well.

 
jomar said:
yeah, that must be it.  she saw her old classmate rising up in the ranks and decided to make up a sexual assault story to stop it.  it's so obvious.  and so devious to not spring the plan until he was up for SCOTUS!!  brilliant!
Click to expand...
It's funny how Ford's honesty is questioned in large part because she supposedly had some sort of political and personal motivation to lie, and yet not one person who makes that claim can bring themselves to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Kavanaugh had far greater and more direct political and personal motivation to lie.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
She described the names of the participants that were shown on the calendar.
Click to expand...
She got 3 of the names, two of which were the people she accused.

But she would be then grossly incorrect about the location and description of home. Not to mention it means her account of how many people were there doesn't match up at all. Thats insanely broad latitude.  

 
Ford's testimony was compelling  and I believe she was likely telling the truth.  However, based on what was reported on the allegation against him at college, I am almost certain that was true.

 
parasaurolophus said:
She got 3 of the names, two of which were the people she accused.

But she would be then grossly incorrect about the location and description of home. Not to mention it means her account of how many people were there doesn't match up at all. Thats insanely broad latitude.  
Click to expand...
It’s not worth revisiting but IIRC there were 4, and if it was 3 that’s still no small detail, she clearly knew these people.

She didn’t recall the location or type of home.

If she didn’t know any of these people - as BK claimed - that would have been impossible. IIRC she was dating one of the guys at the party or her friend was.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
She described the names of the participants that were shown on the calendar.
Click to expand...
They had no recollection of the event she described, which isn’t surprising as she had no recollection of the time or location outside of it being summer.

I think she was largely coaxed and used as a political tool, but it’s irrelevant now. People can thrash about and faux asterisk all they like.  It won’t impact anything.

 
identikit said:
Sounds like most everyone is 100% sorta sure.
Click to expand...
Truly this is the thing - we're all so predictable on this, right? Does this make sense that all the Trump critics should think 'oh she has a case' or 'BK is lying' - and all the Trump agnostics or supporters say 'she's a fraud' or 'it's a frameup'? 

Wouldn't under normal circumstances 1/2 the people think she may be right and the other half think he's totally lying, without any political leanings coming into it? 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sabertooth
FBI being asked to circle back on Brett Kavanaugh by Senator Whitehouse
2 3 4
Replies
157
Views
3K
shadrap
shadrap
E
  • Poll
Liberals of the PSF - tell us a little about yourselves
2 3
Replies
107
Views
2K
Zow
Zow
GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Boston
Boston

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top