Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
For some reason it really bugs me that the person who created it tweeted it and got 3k retweets but this other random comedian shares it (doesn't retweet, but downloads it and uploads it again) gets 84k retweets |
Anonymous
| Weren't Ford's lawyers (the ones recommended by Feinstein) obligated to tell her that the Republicans were willing to fly to California and take her testimony quietly? Exactly whom was Katz working for? Her client....or the Democrats? |
Anonymous
Don't call it too soon. It ain't over til it's over. Ask DJT |
Anonymous
Trollie, honey, go sleepie, sweetie. |
Anonymous
A lie under oath, before SJC, on national television? Hell yeah! Give me a rational reason where that is acceptable for SCOTUS? This position requires extreme levels of public trust to be legitimate. |
Anonymous
No. You can't abolish the statute of limitations and then charge someone for a crime that took place during the timeframe when statute existed. This violates the Ex Post Facto clause in the Constitution (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html). Every now and then, politicians will make a show of passing laws to get around this, knowing full well that they won't hold up in court because they don't want to appear to be "soft on crime." Even if this somehow wasn't a factor, no prosecutor is going to charge someone with an attempted drunken sexual battery that was alleged to have taken place while he was a minor, 36 years ago. The only cases that get opened from that far back are murder. The only way Kavanaugh is going to prison is if he gets caught lying to the FBI, which is a crime. That's how Hastert got nailed. |
Anonymous
Yes, I think they will because they do not want to implicate themselves in crimes. However, lying to the FBI is a crime, so many of them will refuse to speak to the FBI. |
Anonymous
Why do you think they weren't working for Ford's interests? |
Anonymous
It would have adversely affected his ability to be accepted to college, which in turn would adversely impact his acceptance to the bar. |
Anonymous
This is really, really pathetic. |
Anonymous
Yes, as a society's values evolve and change, it is natural to want leaders whose lives reflect those values with integrity. The reason this is such an important case is that we're not talking about a positive, additional nice-to-have value here, like it would be nice if he weren't rude to women, it would be nice if he didn't break up with them by text, it would be nice if he didn't make respectful jokes. It is a bare minimum for the leaders and teachers in our society -- those who stand for what we hold to be right and good -- not to assault people. I think the double standard is that it's always been acceptable for men to be aggressive towards women and use them as objects. Everyone laughs and normalizes it. That's why the laughter is the key thing that stuck in her mind. They were having fun. This wasn't two people assaulting someone knowing that it was a wrong thing they were doing. They were doing something wrong as if there were nothing wrong about it. And that is a real problem. |
Anonymous
I think that this, right here, is the actual debate. At the time that Brett Kavanaugh was committing these crimes, they were somewhat tolerated or at least put lower on the list of crimes than things like grand theft or whatever. Have we come far enough as a society that they are actually disqualifying today? I don’t know. I hope so, but others may disagree. Imagine the time when the country was slowly changing its collective mind on slavery. Even after slavery was broadly accepted as not ok, you didn’t disqualify previous slave owners from being respected members of society (and enshrined their rights in things like Jim Crow). Our inability to look those people in the eye and say “not ok” and “you were on the wrong side of history” is part of why the race issue roils under the surface of all of American life even today. Because nobody really thought it was “that bad” and nobody had to pay a price. We are watching what the price is for men who assault women even during a climate that tolerated this stuff. Because if we are honest, everyone knows something went down short of rape and that he was involved. Where we are divided is what price he should pay for that sin. |
Anonymous
|
Ford reached out proactively BEFORE Kavanaugh was the nominee to let them know of her existence - to essentially warn not to let Kavanaugh be the pick.
McConnell likely knew this (among other things) and warned Trump. But Trump wanted the one conservative Judge who also favored consolidated presidential power. |
Anonymous
Because she wanted as little publicity as possible and likely would have taken the Rs up on their offer to come to CA and take her testimony quietly. She seemed surprised to learn of that offer, and actually said thank you. The lawyers definitely should have told her of her option. They clearly had a conflict of interest.....to do what's best for their client, or what's best for the Democrats who recommended their legal services. They do not necessarily align. |
Anonymous
|
No one is arguing that Brett is not a smart, hardworking man. He is both. But he can be both and be guilty of sexual assault. The fact that he's been lying under oath should disqualify him from the SCOTUS, no matter what he did 36 years ago.
And his completely partisan temper tantrum yesterday at the SJC hearing should ban him forevermore from being a judge on any court. |