What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (5 Viewers)

If Kavanaugh is not confirmed before the midterms, Republicans, especially Evangelicals, may turn out in large numbers to keep the Senate and House. The SC has not been as big of an issue for Democrats. Until now.

 
Sand said:
This is in direct opposition to the reporting of the NYT:

So the NYT interviewed dozens of folks and found nothing.  Since the NYT is a Tim approved news source, my assumption is that even he would put the weight there and not with the former.   This relegates this story to an extremely dubious allegation.  I find it telling that to "refresh" her memory she utilized a lawyer and not a mental health professional.  

While the allegation from Dr. Ford remains a very serious matter, all indications are here that this one has a vanishingly low veracity rating.
Click to expand...
Good morning. 

The New York Times in indeed a reliable source for news. 

The New Yorker is also a reliable source for news. 

This isn’t Breitbart vs Daily Caller. These guys are responsible journalists all around. Whatever contradiction they have, I’m sure will sort itself out. 

 
Sand said:
This is in direct opposition to the reporting of the NYT:

So the NYT interviewed dozens of folks and found nothing.  Since the NYT is a Tim approved news source, my assumption is that even he would put the weight there and not with the former.   This relegates this story to an extremely dubious allegation.  I find it telling that to "refresh" her memory she utilized a lawyer and not a mental health professional.  

While the allegation from Dr. Ford remains a very serious matter, all indications are here that this one has a vanishingly low veracity rating.
Click to expand...
These stories are not inconsistent.  They couldn't find anybody who was present during the incident, but talked to many people who had heard about the incident.  

 
Sand said:
While the allegation from Dr. Ford remains a very serious matter, all indications are here that this one has a vanishingly low veracity rating.
Click to expand...
Actually this allegation has something the Ford one does not- a second person who says he heard about it at the time and was “100% positive” it was Kavanaugh. 

There are also people who denied it or said they have no recollection. That’s why an FBI investigation would be so useful. Maybe this second person is lying. Maybe those other people are lying. But it’s not against the law to lie to a journalist. It is against the law to lie to the FBI. 

 
timschochet said:
Actually this allegation has something the Ford one does not- a second person who says he heard about it at the time and was “100% positive” it was Kavanaugh. 

There are also people who denied it or said they have no recollection. That’s why an FBI investigation would be so useful. Maybe this second person is lying. Maybe those other people are lying. But it’s not against the law to lie to a journalist. It is against the law to lie to the FBI. 
Click to expand...
One would think that Kavanaugh, himself, be calling for an investigation to clear his name, otherwise this will a cloud over him for his entire term as a member of SCOTUS.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well if this isn't a giant cluster #### at this point.  Not a surprise with this guy in the office though.  There is a reason McConnell didn't want him picked in the first place.  There is no time to pull him and submit a new one prior to election so republicans are going to try and push him through at all costs as they are rightly afraid for their majority and if Democrats win the Senate not a singe Trump nominee will get a vote as Merrick Garland turns around and bits them in the ###.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
The real story of the New Yorker article isn't just the allegation, although that's important.  The real story is this passage, which Farrow and Mayer put right up front in the first paragraph of the article, where it belongs:
 

Think about what that means if there really is any connection between the two, which is almost certainly the case. That's not a he-said, she-said from long ago.  It doesn't depend on the truth of the allegations. It's the leadership of the political party that controls America hearing of a sexual assault allegation against a Supreme Court nominee and reacting by trying to push the nomination through to a floor vote before the accusation can be heard and vetted. In a non-Trump era that would be a massive scandal.  Even in the Trump era it's remarkable.
Click to expand...
Agree completely on that. I understand  Mugatu in Zoolander, “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills”

 
timschochet said:
Actually this allegation has something the Ford one does not- a second person who says he heard about it at the time and was “100% positive” it was Kavanaugh. 

There are also people who denied it or said they have no recollection. That’s why an FBI investigation would be so useful. Maybe this second person is lying. Maybe those other people are lying. But it’s not against the law to lie to a journalist. It is against the law to lie to the FBI. 
Click to expand...
Just to be clear here is the exact quote.

"The classmate said that he is “one hundred per cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez" 

 
parasaurolophus said:
Just to be clear here is the exact quote.

"The classmate said that he is “one hundred per cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez" 
Click to expand...
Fair enough. It’s still pretty damning if true. It means this story wasn’t fabricated by Democratic operatives, which is the claim currently coming from many on the right, including the President. 

 
timschochet said:
Fair enough. It’s still pretty damning if true. It means this story wasn’t fabricated by Democratic operatives, which is the claim currently coming from many on the right, including the President. 
Click to expand...
I would agree that it is silly to think this story came from democratic operatives. I think the fact that the new york times and new yorker were both investigating this for a long time is enough to dispell that rumor. The quote you picked doesnt really matter and is more of the same that we have seen here of focusing on some random encyclopedia brown type detail like it is a smoking gun of sorts. 

 
Stick a fork in him, regardless of how one might feel regarding the validity of this latest claim, politically he is done. It might take until the end of the week but he isn't getting confirmed.

 
At this point, you pull Kavanaugh and remove any and all men from the short list. Powerful, wealthy men will always have something like this in their past. Or the chance that they won't is too small to count on.

Keep that list of female conservative judges. Drop the "gotta overturn Roe!" requirement ... treat that as the 28th Amendment and move on. Then let it play out. I guess past transgressions can still be found, but #metoo events should be vanishingly rare.

 
Matthias said:
There is a month more between now and when the new Senate would be seated than it's taken for Kavanaugh to get from his announcement to now.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that Republicans will try to push someone else through if they can’t confirm Kavanaugh, but this seems a little misleading because the Senate usually goes on recess for several weeks around election time.  Also, you’re pegging it from Kavanaugh’s announcement but it could take a little time for the White House to announce another nominee, especially because they will know that if they screw that one up, the seat could be lost.  Not to mention that if Dems do take the Senate, the optics of pushing through a justice in the lame duck are gonna be pretty ugly.  I know that neither Trump nor McConnell care about that part though.

 
proninja said:
Damn, poor men. When will they get a fair shake? :violin:
Click to expand...
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I really think the entire list of male Supreme Court "contenders" (both conservative and liberal, mind you) is highly likely to have sexual misconduct in their backgrounds.

 
JuniorGong said:
Stick a fork in him, regardless of how one might feel regarding the validity of this latest claim, politically he is done. It might take until the end of the week but he isn't getting confirmed.
Click to expand...
This is probably true.

fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Not to mention that if Dems do take the Senate, the optics of pushing through a justice in the lame duck are gonna be pretty ugly.  I know that neither Trump nor McConnell care about that part though.
Click to expand...
Yep - if they can ram another one through you bet they will.

 
While at Yale, Kavanaugh became a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, or “DKE,” which several students said was known for its wild and, in the view of some critics, misogynistic parties. Kavanaugh was also a member of an all-male secret society, Truth and Courage, which was popularly known by the nickname “### and ****.”
Click to expand...
- Eh, not sure if any of y'all knew the Dekes but at LSU this rep definitely would fit going back a long way. That is all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matthias said:
There is a month more between now and when the new Senate would be seated than it's taken for Kavanaugh to get from his announcement to now.
Click to expand...
On a calendar yes but they clearly don't want this fight going on immediately pre-election and no Senator wants that either.  There is a reason they pushed for October 1 as they want to campaign not be tied up in hearings on a new nominee.  

 
Doug B said:
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I really think the entire list of male Supreme Court "contenders" (both conservative and liberal, mind you) is highly likely to have sexual misconduct in their backgrounds.
Click to expand...
Then why didn’t we hear about it with Gorsuch? Or Alito? 

 
timschochet said:
14 minutes ago, Doug B said:
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I really think the entire list of male Supreme Court "contenders" (both conservative and liberal, mind you) is highly likely to have sexual misconduct in their backgrounds.
Click to expand...
The idea that you think that all guys have sexual misconduct in their background says a lot about you.

 
Matthias said:
The White House already had a short list. I'm sure with a little pushing they could pick one within a couple of days. And I have no doubt that McConnell could and would get someone confirmed before January 3rd. Even if you take the Senate out of session for a few weeks for the elections, you still have as much time as Kavanaugh has already had without McConnell putting this in rush mode. And a decent bit of the time, if I understand it correctly, is pressing palms with individual Senators for a sit-down chat. Which he could do with some of the 2/3 of the Senate not up for election if they were willing to stick around or come back for an afternoon.

I just don't see any real chance that, if the Republicans lose control of the Senate, McConnell doesn't get someone approved in the next 10 weeks.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of ways to gum up the works especially if the Republicans lose the Senate.  Every day they wait makes it that much easier.

 
Matthias said:
They're talking about pushing through a guy with open sexual abuse allegations. Optics and standards aren't an obstacle here.
Click to expand...
Yes disgusting part on the Republicans which is certainly no surprise.   There should be an investigation and then a vote afterwards.   However if at then end of it all it boils down to he-said, she-said then I really don't think they should be a factor in the actual vote. 

 
proninja said:
Ah. Why? 
Click to expand...
Just the way I believe the world works, I guess.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about Weinstein, Cosby, and Lauer types here -- I'm counting stuff like what Aziz Ansari and Chris Hardwick were accused of as "sexual misconduct" sufficient to impede an SC nomination. Getting semi-cleared and virtually left alone by society won't be good enough for a SC nominee -- the accusation and bad press will be enough.

 
Godsbrother said:
Yes disgusting part on the Republicans which is certainly no surprise.   There should be an investigation and then a vote afterwards.   However if at then end of it all it boils down to he-said, she-said then I really don't think they should be a factor in the actual vote. 
Click to expand...
In a simple he said, she said I may have t agree. However by the way it’s looking, this is turning into a dozen said, he said which lends validity to the “she” side. Not sure if that makes sense.

 
Doug B said:
Ramblin Wreck said:
toshiba said:
Accusation wasn't the quote.  Actual sexual misconduct in their background was.
Click to expand...
Define sexual misconduct
Click to expand...
I mean, even low-level public-shaming stuff (e.g. Ansari's date thinking he was pushy and inconsiderate in bed) would be enough to derail a SC nominee IMHO. You don't have to have anyone accuse anybody of anything illegal.
Click to expand...
So you think Kavanaugh is not going to be on the SC?

 
toshiba said:
Godsbrother said:
toshiba said:
The idea that you think that all guys have sexual misconduct in their background says a lot about you.
Click to expand...
This wasn't directed at me and I have do not have any sexual misconduct but any guy could be accused of it.
Click to expand...
Accusation wasn't the quote.  Actual sexual misconduct in their background was.
Click to expand...
Although -- probably more in line of what I'm thinking is that a strong majority of male SC contenders (both sides of the aisle) will have a potentially credible sexual "something" accusation in their past.

 
Matthias said:
Doug B said:
I mean, even low-level public-shaming stuff (e.g. Ansari's date thinking he was pushy and inconsiderate in bed) would be enough to derail a SC nominee IMHO. You don't have to have anyone accuse anybody of anything illegal.
Click to expand...
I cannot believe this is true. And the exact type of hyperbole which derails real discussion and trivializes actual issues and harms.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it is just an attempt to equate all accusations as the same.  Pretty pathetic!

 
Matthias said:
He finished before I did is not in the same universe as he groped me and covered my mouth so I couldn't scream.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But #metoo is a single bucket without nuance. Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein get thrown in with Al Franken and Aziz Ansari. Someone on the set of Arrested Development threw Jeffrey Tambor in there for things he said on set. Tambor's accusation didn't really gain traction, but the accusation was made all the same.

 
Doug B said:
Just the way I believe the world works, I guess.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about Weinstein, Cosby, and Lauer types here -- I'm counting stuff like what Aziz Ansari and Chris Hardwick were accused of as "sexual misconduct" sufficient to impede an SC nomination. Getting semi-cleared and virtually left alone by society won't be good enough for a SC nominee -- the accusation and bad press will be enough.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that. One person (or even two or three people) coming forward with an allegation similar to the one against Ansari would not tank a nomination. We'd have an awkward discourse about it for a couple weeks, the person would apologize profusely and claim a sincere misunderstanding (as Ansari did) and would eventually move on and get the job.

That said, it's worth remembering why Kavanaugh and the GOP are in this mess. The #metoo movement was started in part because of Donald Trump, leader of the GOP. The degradation of political discourse and our immediate reaction to stories (assuming bad faith, drawing bright lines, getting mad at each other) is because of Donald Trump, leader of the GOP. The blatant, unapologetic deployment of political tactics to engineer the ideological bent of the Supreme Court is because of the Merrick Garland fiasco. They made their bed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
Good.  There’s enough going on without insane conspiracy theories clouding the issue.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And speaking of clouding the issue

CNN focus group of conservative women turns out to be comprised of GOP operatives

CNN interviewed women about the Brett Kavanaugh allegations, but they weren’t casual voters as presented
Click to expand...
“I mean, we’re talking about a 15-year-old girl, which I respect. I’m a woman. I respect. But we’re talking about a 17-year-old boy in high school with testosterone running high. Tell me, what boy hasn’t done this in high school?” Gina Sosa asked.

The segment, which aired on "Anderson Cooper 360," shocked many viewers due to the callousness of the women and their disregard for Christine Blasey Ford's claims.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
11K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
2K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top