Kavanaugh hearing

[Forty Two]

Jeez what those Democrats are doing is really really terrible. And you know what? It could get worse. If they were to take the US Senate, they could simply refuse to hold any hearings at all for a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. Oh, the howls of outrage that would rise up then.

If they took the Senate, I would expect them to vote Kavanaugh down, as is their right, for any reason they want. Also, if Trump doesn't nominate someone who they like, then it would be their duty to refuse consent. They'd be the majority in the Senate, and that would be their job.

You misrepresent my reference. The constitutional duty of advice and consent which is incumbent upon the US Senate--holding hearings to evaluate the nominee, followed by voting on whether to elevate the nominee to the Supreme Court--is one thing. Refusing to even consider the qualifications of the nominee, circumventing the constitutional process by refusing to fulfill the duty of the Senate for political reasons is another thing entirely. Jumping up and down and yelping about how the Democrats shouldn't be considering 'uncorroborated' allegations is nothing but hypocritical when one has been silent about the above tactic employed by the Republicans. Perhaps you could direct me to your righteous criticism of McConnell's obstruction of the Garland nomination?

I had no criticism of the Garland nomination, because the Senate at that time followed the Senate's practice in that regard. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html "Scalia’s death led to only the third Supreme Court nomination in a presidential election year since World War II, and all three vacancies were filled by the winner. (William Brennan’s recess appointment by Dwight Eisenhower was only confirmed after Ike was reelected in a landslide.)" Merrick Garland was treated no differently.

"Before World War II, the Senate refused to let Presidents Rutherford B. Hayes, James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler and John Quincy Adams fill a vacancy during a presidential election year. A hostile Congress did worse to Andrew Johnson after the Civil War; he was stripped of his nominating power."

"In all of American history, only one Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year was confirmed before the election by a Senate of the opposing party. That was in 1888, when the court was facing a critical backlog of cases, there was no chief justice, and the Democratic president (Grover Cleveland) nominated a judge acceptable to Republicans."

"Now and again presidents have succeeded in pushing through a nominee in a presidential election year — but only when their party ran the Senate, or when the nomination had been submitted the previous year. Kennedy, for example, was confirmed in February 1988, but he was Ronald Reagan’s third choice, nominated in 1987 after two other nominations failed. The rules for hearings and floor votes have gone back and forth over the years, but the Senate majority has nearly always had its way in the end.

Democrats lost the Garland fight because they lost the Senate in 2014."

"Midterm elections are different. Two of the four Democrat-appointed justices on the Supreme Court were nominated and confirmed in midterm election years (Justice Elena Kagan in 2010 and Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994). Breyer, like Scalia in 1986, was confirmed less than four months before the president’s party lost the Senate, and Democrats got Breyer through even while Clinton was the subject of an independent prosecutor’s investigation. Other justices confirmed in midterm election years include David Souter in 1990, Harry Blackmun (the author of Roe vs. Wade) in 1970, and Earl Warren (who joined the court just in time to write Brown vs. Board of Education) in 1954."

"In total, presidents have submitted nominations for 28 Supreme Court vacancies before a midterm election, and 27 were filled before the midterm. (The exception was Andrew Johnson.) The record’s 14 for 14 since 1914, when senators started being popularly elected.

Democrats probably can’t break with history by denying Kavanaugh a vote, and they have only themselves to blame: They eliminated the Senate minority’s right to filibuster lower-court judges in 2013, a move Republicans imitated for Supreme Court nominations in 2017. If they want to stop Trump from appointing another Supreme Court justice in the event of yet another vacancy during his term, they will have to win back the Senate.

Both parties have been guilty of hypocrisy, lies, obstruction and mischief with the rules in the judicial confirmation wars over the years. But Republicans who blocked Garland and now demand a vote for Kavanaugh are on solid historical ground. Elections have consequences, and the power to have Supreme Court justices confirmed before midterm elections is one of them."

That's rather different than being the minority, and drumming up or helping to drum up uncorroborated allegations about something that supposedly happened 36 years ago at a high school get together and then spend Senate committee time interviewing a SCOTUS candidate on the blurbs in his high school yearbook.

Your opinion of the allegations made by Blasey Ford is irrelevant, as is your opinion of her credibility.

Nope. The allegations are 36 years old. Her own claim was that she never mentioned anything to anyone about it until 2012 (and she said that was in relation to the second front door being put on her house then in a remodel, but that door was put on years earlier in 2008), and she did, in fact, give different versions of the story, changing the time frame it occurred, changing the location of the house, changing the number of people at the event, changing the layout of the house, etc. That's not "her credibility." It doesn't matter who recounts that and how credibly they do it - the facts remain the same. As do the facts that the Democrats had this information in july, and dropped it like a bomb at the close of confirmation hearings, etc.

The US Senate has a duty to consider allegations of serious criminal activity made by a credible witness. Despite your opinion, as a body the US Senate considered Blasey Ford a credible witness and her allegations were given consideration.

I've not objected to the Senate looking at her allegations. Doesn't change the fact that these are decades old allegations, where the only witnesses she's named have no memory of it, and one that she claimed was her friend said she never met Kavanaugh, and that she changed her story as to timing, location, layout and attendees of the party, and made misstatements about the reason she supposedly mentioned the issue to her therapist in 2012 (it was demonstrably not in relation to a debate over getting a second front door - and her second front door was not for escape route purposes, it was for renting part of her home out to strangers), etc.

Hear her out, but to kill a nomination over such an allegation opens up that to be the standard in the future - and, that's the real problem - what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and when it is shown that ancient, unfalsifiable allegations of heinous activity is enough, then you will see scumbag republicans making allegations too. If such allegations cannot be verified or corroborated, then there is nothing much we can, or should, do with them. Believe the victim is an untenable concept, and is anti-reason, anti-logic. We cannot run a system on that.

But, frankly, the real problem is the 3 GOP Senators like Flake who breathe life into the Democrat's actions by entertaining their silly and transparent machinations. Just fucking vote on the candidate. If the new polls are any indication, the Democrats just shot themselves in the foot by doing all this crap, and the voters are now more pro-Trump than they've ever been. One latest poll has Trump at a 50% approval rating ..... all the gasps and Japan fanning on CNN about Trump recounting the problems with Dr. Ford's "story" aside....

Noting that you've failed to produce any links to these 'new polls,' I'll ask: Do you think the US Senate should conduct itself according to the results of popularity polls?

It's the Rasmussen polls, I believe.

I think most of the time the US Senate should take public opinion into consideration (but not the only consideration), after all, the election of Senators was changed to popular voting 100 years ago for that very reason, that they should correspond to the will of the people. But, in general, they should also be mindful not to cave in to the mob - and if the people are rioting and going batshit over something, that rise in anger, offense or upset - the vicissitudes of emotional drama, etc. - should not be taken into account. That's why we have a representative democracy, and not direct voting on appointees - they're supposed to act with cooler heads. Senators should be careful not to be swayed by hysteria.

[Tero]

He said she said?
http://time.com/5413814/he-said-she-sai ... -mitchell/

[Forty Two]

They got it covered.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/all-ey ... naugh-vote

Daines said in a Friday statement that fellow Montana Rep. Greg Gianforte, a friend, offered to let Daines use his plane to get back to Washington to vote, if needed.

“My good friend and colleague, Greg, has come to save the day. If I need to be in two places at once to walk my daughter down the aisle on her wedding day and to be the final vote to put Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, he’s offered me use of his plane,” Daines said.

Illegal campaign contribution! Emolument Clause! Thing of value!

[Sean Hayden]

Tero, don't spread that shit. You're asking to make the world a worse place.

I said we can use common sense, I agree with that. But it's a far cry from establishing guilt.

What’s striking about the Kavanaugh case is that the evidence we saw at the hearing was more significant than what is presented in many criminal trials where a guilty verdict is returned. Dr. Ford’s credible testimony, her statements making this accusation years earlier, and her lack of motive to lie, especially compared to the incentives for her to stay silent, would be legally sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction for attempted rape. And that does not even consider the substantiating evidence provided by Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge’s autobiographical novel, Kavanaugh’s own crude yearbook statements and his evasiveness during questioning. If this were a mugging, we might just say “case closed.”

If you agree with this not just because it may be true, but because it ought to be true, please stay the fuck away from the justice system. You're dangerous.

[Forty Two]

The opinion of a former prosecutor who specialized in prosecuting sex crimes. I consider it much more reliable than that of unqualified internet commenters.

'I Was a Sex-Crimes Prosecutor. Here’s Why "He Said, She Said" Is a Myth'

Good article, only we actually treat sex crimes victims testimony better than other crime victims testimony, because there are evidentiary protections afforded to sex crime victims that are not afforded to others.

That being said, in no type of crime is the word of the victim taken at face value. In any case, say, if some guy says he was beaten up by his former friend in a fight, but there were no witnesses, no bruises or indicia that a fight occurred, and the accused denied it, then there would be no conviction, and we wouldn't "believe the victim" in the sense of taking any official action against the accused based on the uncorroborated word of the accuser.

And the article noted that not all rape cases are he-said-she-said - and yes, that is 100% accurate. In fact, most rape cases have more than just verbal word. Typically, a promptly reported rape case will have some sort of forensic evidence, as well as possibly fresh witness testimony to show what was happening around the time and place of the incident. If a person waits three or four decades to report any crime, that report will be met with a high degree of skepticism, particularly if it is advanced at a time when it serves a political, financial or other purpose.

If it was a simple assault by Kavanaugh against his former roommate Roche, nobody would just "believe" Roche, even though most people don't accuse other people of assaults falsely. There would have to be some corroboration that makes sense. And, no matter how honest, forthright and persuasive Roche seemed, his own word just would not be enough.

What Mitchell actually wrote is in line with the article you quoted. Note, Mitchell did not say that this was a case of "he said she said and so there is nothing the law can do." She said this case is WORSE than he-said-she said. That's because the evidence pointed to significant doubt about the accuser's story.

[Sean Hayden]

the evidence we saw at the hearing was more significant than what is presented in many criminal trials where a guilty verdict is returned.

Yes, and usually we worry that justice isn't be served. But here we are worried that what, we can't do it when we really, really know it's okay this time?

That's dangerous.

[Tyrannical]

Blasey Ford and her retired FBI pal Monica McLean are going to be indicted soon. Blasey only has a few counts of perjury, McLean is in big doo-doo for witness tampering and lying during her FBI hiring interview about lie detectors. Because before you take a lie detector test, they ask you about lie detectors tests.

[Brian Peacock]

The opinion of a former prosecutor who specialized in prosecuting sex crimes. I consider it much more reliable than that of unqualified internet commenters.

'I Was a Sex-Crimes Prosecutor. Here’s Why "He Said, She Said" Is a Myth'

Good article, only we actually treat sex crimes victims testimony better than other crime victims testimony, because there are evidentiary protections afforded to sex crime victims that are not afforded to others.

That being said, in no type of crime is the word of the victim taken at face value. In any case, say, if some guy says he was beaten up by his former friend in a fight, but there were no witnesses, no bruises or indicia that a fight occurred, and the accused denied it, then there would be no conviction, and we wouldn't "believe the victim" in the sense of taking any official action against the accused based on the uncorroborated word of the accuser.

And the article noted that not all rape cases are he-said-she-said - and yes, that is 100% accurate. In fact, most rape cases have more than just verbal word. Typically, a promptly reported rape case will have some sort of forensic evidence, as well as possibly fresh witness testimony to show what was happening around the time and place of the incident. If a person waits three or four decades to report any crime, that report will be met with a high degree of skepticism, particularly if it is advanced at a time when it serves a political, financial or other purpose.

If it was a simple assault by Kavanaugh against his former roommate Roche, nobody would just "believe" Roche, even though most people don't accuse other people of assaults falsely. There would have to be some corroboration that makes sense. And, no matter how honest, forthright and persuasive Roche seemed, his own word just would not be enough.

What Mitchell actually wrote is in line with the article you quoted. Note, Mitchell did not say that this was a case of "he said she said and so there is nothing the law can do." She said this case is WORSE than he-said-she said. That's because the evidence pointed to significant doubt about the accuser's story.

The majority of sexual assaults take place between two people in private - a situation which all told is predisposed to "he said, she said", particularly where there is a dearth of physical evidence, and even more so with cases of historical abuse. I fear that given the profile of this case, and the lengths and depths that political operators have gone to this week to belittle and discredit Ms Ford, up to and including open mockery by the President, this whole affair will make it even harder for people who've experience sexual abuses to come forward.

[pErvinalia]

I'm no fan of Argumentum ad YouTube and the video doesn't represent a proxy for my argument, which is that Mr Kavanaugh has demonstrated he doesn't have the necessary temperament or the political independence for the role. I posted it more for its light-hearted relief.

In a single paragraph you have contradicted yourself admirably! a) You're not in favor of seeing videos. But, b) Kavanaugh has demonstrated...

He didn't say he's not in favour of seeing videos. Nice try, though.

[Tero]

All guys in US, go buy condoms! Abortion is soon ending across the USA.

[Tero]

Democrat puts own re-election over party unity
https://www.yahoo.com/news/joe-manchin- ... 37393.html

[Sean Hayden]

Wow, that's crazy. I actually thought they may have stirred up enough shit to keep him out. But even a dem is going to vote for him!

[Galaxian]

Here's another aspect that's been ignored. Why? Because 99% of people are not lateral thinkers. They can not think outside the box. And even when an unexpected idea comes along, their mental lethargy prevents them from seeing, or wanting to see the refreshing & fresh new concept. It's often referred to as "Cognitive Dissonance", or bigotry: Unwillingness to consider another factual presentation.

Here, Galaxian will consider the factor of inebriation. Yes, the rabid critics of Brett Kavanaugh rant on and on about his drinking. He was constantly sozzled. At every gathering great or small. He even said that he likes beer (the alcoholic variety).

What more do we need? He's a drunk, fits in well with what Forty Two has indicated about the legal eagles he's met. So, it follows, the lambasters say: "He must have raped ALL those girls, but doesn't remember it. Or, the drink drove him to it...it reduced his self-control, etc, etc".

Let's see what the facts are about drinking alcohol and having sex, either consensual or forced:

https://www.everydayhealth.com/erectile ... -life.aspx
"Drink a little alcohol; kiss your bedroom jitters goodbye: Anyone who’s transformed into Don Juan after a couple of cocktails knows that. But beyond that newfound confidence, is alcohol good for your sex life?
Actually, the effect can be the opposite as your blood alcohol level increases. Alcohol is a depressant, and using it heavily can dampen mood, decrease sexual desire, and make it difficult for a man to achieve erections or reach an orgasm while under the influence. In fact, overdoing it on booze is a common cause of erectile dysfunction.
Temporary erectile dysfunction. Researchers have found that too much alcohol affects both your brain and your penis. In one University of Washington study, sober men were able to achieve an erection more quickly than intoxicated men — and some men are unable to have an erection at all after drinking.

That’s because pre-sex boozing decreases blood flow to your penis, reduces the intensity of your orgasm, and can dampen your level of excitement (in other words, even if you are able to have sex, it may not be nearly as pleasurable as it would be without the excess alcohol).

Long-term erectile dysfunction. The risk for long-term erectile dysfunction has been linked to chronic heavy use of alcohol. In fact, studies show that men who are dependent on alcohol have a 60 to 70 percent chance of suffering from sexual problems. The most common of these are erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and loss of sexual desire."

Here's more. This time even the 'desire' for sex is dampened by too much alcohol...the amounts Kavanaugh partook of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_sex#In_men
"Men's sexual behaviors can be affected dramatically by alcohol. Both chronic and acute alcohol consumption have been shown in most [3][4][5] (but not all[6]) studies to inhibit testosterone production in the testes. This is believed to be caused by the metabolism of alcohol reducing the NAD+/NADH ratio both in the liver and the testes; since the synthesis of testosterone requires NAD+, this tends to reduce testosterone production.[7][8]

As testosterone is critical for libido and physical arousal,alcohol tends to have deleterious effects on male sexual performance. Studies have been conducted that indicate increasing levels of alcohol intoxication produce a significant degradation in male masturbatory effectiveness (MME). This degradation was measured by measuring blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and ejaculation latency.[9] Alcohol intoxication can decrease sexual arousal, decrease pleasureability and intensity of orgasm, and increase difficulty in attaining orgasm.

And there's much more literature on the topic of excessive alcohol & libido (sexual desire). So, since the Kavanaugh haters, the wowser goody-two-shoes want a celibate teetotaler as Supreme Court judge, they should also remember that Kavanaugh could not have been as promiscuous as has been alleged: His supposed heavy drinking refutes and contradicts the simultaneous accusation of being a sexual predator. But go ahead, demand that a puritan nanny be appointed, a man-hater with no insight into human foibles

You have wasted a huge amount of your limited time on earth with this post (unless your intergalactic status confers immortality upon you too). I was drunk a great deal in my 20s and up to my mid thirties and I also had (consensual) sex with several dozen or more women. End of hypothesis.

We all noticed how The Great Galaxian generalised from the particular there - going from 'some' men can find it difficult to achieve an erection when drunk, to inferring that 'all' men suffer that malady, to implying Mr Kavanaugh could not have performed a sexual act if he was drunk, before concluding that no assault could have been committed against Ms Ford. As deductive logic goes it's a pretty poor show - but not only that, while mentioning that alcohol 'tends' to act as a depressant he failed to note that it also acts as a disinhibitor, such that (even by his own logic) the young Mr Kavanaugh could have been more likely to engage in risky behaviours when intoxicated even if he couldn't, erm, marshal his forces effectively due to excess hooch.

That, as you point out, we are also being tacitly asked to accept this in a binary fashion apparently gives Galaxian the confidence to suggest that either the young Mr Kavanaugh was paralytic (and therefore unable to sexually assault because he wouldn't be able to rise to the occasion: something which presupposes that a sexual assault is always and only penetrative) or sober (and therefore unlikely to sexually assault because he would've been in control of his faculties). Either way, Galaxian posits a general rule which seemingly renders the possibility of male sexual assault as unachievable when either inebriated or sober.

I think Galaxian should've just stuck to butchering Ms Ford's reputation - at least he seemed to be bringing a certain flair and enthusiasm to that endeavour.

It goes without saying that, apart from our resident peripatetic philosopher possessing phenomenal priapic prowess, that apart from him, what Galaxian quoted from legitimate research was a probable particular elicited from the generalized research finding: (Not the other way around, as you proposed). That is, that, "Alcohol is a depressant, and using it heavily can dampen mood, decrease sexual desire, and make it difficult for a man to achieve erections or reach an orgasm while under the influence."

Those are the facts for the general male population, that not even inebriated lechers can deny... though of course it does not apply to them... so they claim. Perhaps excess alcohol merely pickles their brain & leaves their penis as vigorous as ever

[Tero]

Dick waggler suppressing friends from contacting FBI
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/new- ... 30?v=railb&
Did not matter, Trump WH directed th FBI

[Tero]

Women, next time someone tries to rape you, always take pictures with your cell phone and post them on FB. Then tell your best friend. Otherwise senators 30 years later will not believe you:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... cruel.html

Because victims are making up rapists all the time! Or at least 6% of fhe time.