Reply to "Justice" a new documentary on Kavanaugh

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to ""Justice" a new documentary on Kavanaugh "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist.  She told her therapist four boys, all in high society.  Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think.  Also she had the year wrong.  Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.[/quote]
This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?[/quote]

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative.  They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall.  Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court.  If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).[/quote]

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.[/quote]

Crime?  Be serious.  A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime.   The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS.  SCOTUS should have better.[/quote]

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude.  I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.[/quote]

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.[/quote]

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get [b]random[/b] accusations.[/quote]

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations.  Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning.  With the help of her "beach" friend. 
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?  [/quote]

You realize you are saying that a woman who was assaulted saying under oath that she was assaulted has "no foundation" for telling what happened to her. So if there isn't video or a witness you are willing to believe, then it didn't happen?[/quote]
That’s pretty much the playbook of Republicans. I mean you can see from their forced birther politics that they truly don’t consider women to be people, they’re property, and as such, whatever a guy wants to do to a girl is acceptable and irreproachable. Either it didn’t happen or it’s her fault/she should have stopped it/what was she wearing or she wanted it but now she feels guilty so she’s lying about it.

The thing is that Bretty’s cheering squad wants to put this alleged incident over there on its own pedestal, stripped of the context within with the GOP treats women, women’s bodies and sexual assault. They think we won’t notice that they treat every alleged victim at least this badly, if not worse, especially those women who are brave enough to try and get the law involved to stop a rapist.

Those among the Bretty cheering squad who have experienced sexual assault, both male and female, know full well the truth of what she’s saying. They just don’t like it, they don’t like admitting that what happened to them was not their fault, but they are tribal and they are going to double down. There’s a discomfort for these people, an uncomfortable emotional friction and I wish they’d sit with that and go where it leads them. Because Brett showed himself, an angry, small man who has shown no emotional growth since the alleged incident as a teen and not since his years obsessed with the Clintons’ sex life and not since he helped install W. He is unfit. [/quote]

This is what I mean by the entire purpose of this was to make this about the entire party and future elections and not just this one instance. I noticed the person who was on the licensing board who responded and was called out had nothing to actually say about their own licensing and how they would treat an accusation like this. Can you imagine every doctor having to hear about some random person who didn't go through court having someone just show up and talk about something that happened to you 30 years ago with no proof and no criminality attached to it and completely unrelated to your job as a heart surgeon or something?

What if it was that "Bretty" stole $10k in stuff from the family and they had no record of this but it was just words? What if it was that they tried to poison someone way back when 30 years ago? What difference does it make? If criminally you cannot go back that far, then it doesn't matter at the supreme court level. It was a political stunt and nothing more.[/quote]
Christine Blasey Ford’s sole reason for coming forward to keep an unfit man off the highest bench. You’ve clearly spent too much time in the right wing dumb-o-sphere where conspiracy = fact, but your weird leaps in logic don’t wash here. [/quote]

There is nothing a licensing or appointing board can do other than hear accusational information out and make a decision with that information if the person isn't willing to go through the court system for their infringement of rights. There is nothing factual about her testimony other than her opinion. It was just a smear campaign. [/quote]

Nothing factual about this post.  She was very credible.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics