Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Belsnickel]

(09-17-2018, 11:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I did not know that. Certainly changes my opinions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.cabe0eb177ae

Quote:Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.

In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

The only thing here is that the name is not mentioned previously, and the part from the husband smells like bullshit, particularly raising concerns about SCOTUS.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2018, 09:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what is interesting about the nomination of Kavanaugh is that he has been an unabashed partisan actor in the past. While we all know judges have partisan skews, this is a bit unprecedented.

I hadn't put much into the allegations being raised until the information from WaPo came out over the weekend. The timing was suspect to me. However, the inclusion of documentation from the accuser's therapist indicating she discussed this incident six years ago gives me more pause about this and gives the allegation much more credibility.

(09-17-2018, 11:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I did not know that. Certainly changes my opinions.

Which begs the question, why did Feinstein sit on this letter that she had back in July?

I'll also ask this, and please just consider the question and not the nature of the allegations.  Is something a person did at the age of 17 really relevant to the person they are at 53?  I'll also add this question, why do we have separate juvenile and adult criminal court processes?

[Belsnickel]

(09-17-2018, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll also ask this, and please just consider the question and not the nature of the allegations.  Is something a person did at the age of 17 really relevant to the person they are at 53?  I'll also add this question, why do we have separate juvenile and adult criminal court processes?

I've actually been wrestling with this. I tell people often that I am the poster child for male brain development continuing into the mid-20s. I made some terrible decisions when I was younger and my wife has said if she had known me back then, we probably never would have spoken. I feel like my stupid decisions did help mold me into the man I am, but mostly through owning up to my mistakes, learning from them, and moving on.

All of that being said, I would fully expect things of my youth to be drug up if I were dealing with a confirmation hearing like this. This is someone sitting on a co-equal branch of government at the highest level and I would expect something like this to be disqualifying for anyone in this type of situation. We aren't talking about him being punished for his actions. After all, he still has his lifetime appointment to the lower courts. I do think that this sort of thing is disqualifying from the position he seeks, though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2018, 11:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I've actually been wrestling with this. I tell people often that I am the poster child for male brain development continuing into the mid-20s. I made some terrible decisions when I was younger and my wife has said if she had known me back then, we probably never would have spoken. I feel like my stupid decisions did help mold me into the man I am, but mostly through owning up to my mistakes, learning from them, and moving on.

All of that being said, I would fully expect things of my youth to be drug up if I were dealing with a confirmation hearing like this. This is someone sitting on a co-equal branch of government at the highest level and I would expect something like this to be disqualifying for anyone in this type of situation. We aren't talking about him being punished for his actions. After all, he still has his lifetime appointment to the lower courts. I do think that this sort of thing is disqualifying from the position he seeks, though.

You anticipated my follow up question: if the accusers recollection of the event is 100% accurate does that disqualify him from the SC?  Saying yes rather flies in the face of the entire purpose of the juvenile justice system.  Also, the brain development fact is widely accepted fact, and it does not apply to men only.  

[GMDino]

Again, I'm more concerned about all the stuff not released and his lying under oath (twice)...

...but is Junior helping here?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/17/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-donald-trump-jr-mocks-sexual-assault-claim/1333520002/

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 09:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So you will finally admit that Hillary did not break the law?

Of course she broke the law; however, it was determined she didn't commit a crime.

[*bfine32*]

They need to delay the confirmation long enough to interview both the accused and the accuser. The strange thing is, and I'm no lawyer, but if Kav had been accused of this as a minor it may have not even been admissible.

As to Finestien, she should be ashamed of herself, if she sat on this for political reasons.

[jj22]

of course they mock sexual assault allegations.

People should think this is disgraceful, but we've seen this is what the electorate wants and likes.

[jj22]

(09-17-2018, 12:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course she broke the law; however, it was determined she didn't commit a crime.

How is this even possible?

Hillary never broke any laws. You guys love to claim she did even after 40 years, no indictment's, over 100 investigations, and countless hours of testimony under oath have proved her innocent.

That's the proof you need. Not Russian bot's Anti Hillary fake news that they have brainwashed you guys with.

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 12:48 PM)jj22 Wrote: How is this even possible?

I'm not kicking that can down the road again, but a quick example. The speedometer on your car is broken, the police pulls you over because you are exceeding the legal speed limit, you explain your situation, the cop buys it, decides you weren't intentional breaking the law, and does not issue a ticket.

[jj22]

A cop wouldn't buy that If you break the law you have committed a crime.

40 years of investigations. Over 100 of them, and nothing. Crickets. This from Republicans who hate her and would have surely found something ANYTHING if it was there.

Sometimes all it takes is some common sense.

in the mean time yall busy trying to act like trump is innocent while already folks are being indicted and flipping. didn't take 40 years and over 100 investigations. imagine if it did and we were still talking about collusion. Yall would think it's outrageous after all these years and not finding anything. Well that's what many Americans think about these 40 year old and counting Hillary accusations.

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 12:54 PM)jj22 Wrote: A cop wouldn't buy that lie. If you break the law you have committed a crime.

OK

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2018, 12:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to Finestien, she should be ashamed of herself, if she sat on this for political reasons.

You can't blame Finestien.  You have to blame the system.  Even you have admitted that both sides do it.  So Finestein is forced to do it.

It is like I try to explain about capitalism.  The CEOs of corporations are forced to make decisions that place profit above workers and the environment because other companies are doing it.  Any CEO who did not place profits first would be removed by shareholders who are just in it for the money.  

Why wouldn't Finestein sit on it for "political reasons"?  That is her job.

Don't hate on the players.  Hate on the game.

[jj22]

Well like I said. Imagine if it's 40 years later and over 100 investigations and interviews under oath and yet no one has ever been indicted and no one has found Trump and/or any of his associates guilty of anything.

Now when people still claim he colluded what do you think the response would be?

Exactly. That's why the Hillary accusations get one big eye roll outside of Fox News and Trump supporters. Just like if the roles were reversed folks would roll their eye's if Trump was still being accused.

With the indictments and flipping going on around Trump, we won't have to worry about that tho.

Of course, then again yall say Trump even with the indictments, and flipping (and even confessions from Jr. and Trump himself) is innocent, and the one that was cleared over 100 times with no indictments is guilty. Go figure.

We as people must try to do better.

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2018, 11:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.cabe0eb177ae


The only thing here is that the name is not mentioned previously, and the part from the husband smells like bullshit, particularly raising concerns about SCOTUS.

The lack of a name adds some more skepticism back

(09-17-2018, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which begs the question, why did Feinstein sit on this letter that she had back in July?

I'll also ask this, and please just consider the question and not the nature of the allegations.  Is something a person did at the age of 17 really relevant to the person they are at 53?  I'll also add this question, why do we have separate juvenile and adult criminal court processes?

Should have come forward much sooner. In terms of "is it relevant?", I would say it does not make them who they are now, but it certainly should be considered for something as important as SCOTUS as we, traditionally, add a higher level of scrutiny to our top officials.

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2018, 12:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course she broke the law; however, it was determined she didn't commit a crime.

"Intent" is an element of the crime.  It is written into the law.  If the requisite intent is not there then no law has been broken and no crime committed.

You don't break any law or commit any crime if you accidently drop a rock on your neighbor's foot.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't blame Finestien.  You have to blame the system.  Even you have admitted that both sides do it.  So Finestein is forced to do it.

It is like I try to explain about capitalism.  The CEOs of corporations are forced to make decisions that place profit above workers and the environment because other companies are doing it.  Any CEO who did not place profits first would be removed by shareholders who are just in it for the money.  

Why wouldn't Finestein sit on it for "political reasons"?  That is her job.

Don't hate on the players.  Hate on the game.

Didn't say I blamed her; I said she should be ashamed.

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 01:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Intent" is an element of the crime.  It is written into the law.  If the requisite intent is not there then no law has been broken and no crime committed.

You don't break any law or commit any crime if you accidently drop a rock on your neighbor's foot.  

OK

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2018, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll also ask this, and please just consider the question and not the nature of the allegations.  Is something a person did at the age of 17 really relevant to the person they are at 53?  

Depends on if he lies about it at age 53.

[Benton]

(09-17-2018, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which begs the question, why did Feinstein sit on this letter that she had back in July?

I'll also ask this, and please just consider the question and not the nature of the allegations.  Is something a person did at the age of 17 really relevant to the person they are at 53?  I'll also add this question, why do we have separate juvenile and adult criminal court processes?

Interjecting here, but...

To the first:
Midterms. You don't throw the hail mary on second and short.

To the second: Similar to what Matt said, I've thought a lot about this at different times. I think you have to look at it on a case by case basis. The severity of the act, age, record since then, etc. For Kavanaugh, I don't think this would necessarily be an issue that should prevent the nomination, mostly because it's just an accusation. On the other hand, Kavanaugh (correctly or not) seems like he couldn't tell the truth if it was written down a cue card. For that, I don't think he should be on the court.