Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[buttslinger]

I am THRILLED that Fox News has wrapped it's legs around trump, and I'm thrilled at cautiously thrilled about Thursday.
In the NFL, when the other team hikes the ball over the quarterback's head, they're saying "he kavanaughed"

I should start selling Avenatti and Mueller silhouettes for target shooting, 10% off with NRA membership.
It's all coming unglued, Donald, your name will illicit laughter for centuries to come...…..
then again, you never know!

[collinswriters]

Kavanaugh claims he was a virgin, but being a virgin doesn't mean you cannot assault a woman. As to being one of the 'Renate Alumni' maybe this does not mean they all had sex with her, but that they jacked off to a photo and came all over it. I suppose you could call it Locker Room Spunk.

So what if Kavanaugh is innocent?
Is there any evidence to prove he is guilty.
This is getting out of hand. Both had good sessions and nothing can be concluded from that. It's one's word against the other.
I don't know why we are pointing fingers when no evidence points to him. I know we all hate trump based on instinct, but let's not lose our minds and ability to think logically.

[Stavros]

So what if Kavanaugh is innocent?
Is there any evidence to prove he is guilty.
This is getting out of hand. Both had good sessions and nothing can be concluded from that. It's one's word against the other.
I don't know why we are pointing fingers when no evidence points to him. I know we all hate trump based on instinct, but let's not lose our minds and ability to think logically.

Logic demands that a candidate for the Supreme Court answer questions on the law he will be expected to judge. Clarence Hill was appointed even when there was evidence his personal behaviour was insulting to women, but does anyone recall his views of the law? He said nothing for ten years. His wife is a TEA party lobbyist. He was and presumably still is opposed to same-sex marriage. His 'originalist' position on the Constitution is so rigid even Scalia called Thomas 'a nut'. So the issue with Kavanaugh is at its core his perspective on the law, and in particular his view on the limits of Presidential power, and whether or not a President can be, or indeed should be, prosecuted for crimes in the same way as an 'ordinary citizen'. And on the basis of the past, it seems that personal behaviour whether it is proven to be aggressive towards women or not, does not matter to the men who make these appointments. Not does it seem to matter when it comes to electing Presidents. Is it not ironic that the same men who make such bold and biblical claims about sexual morality in men and women apply those morals to every American excep the Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces? Not ironic at all, just hypocrisy.

[buttslinger]

So what if Kavanaugh is innocent?
Is there any evidence to prove he is guilty.

When the FBI sits Kavanaugh down and asks him if he wants to take a lie detector test, like Ford did, he will give some bullshit Matt Damon SNL answer. You might as well give his seat to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or Sean Hannity, fake Viagra peddler. He is as biased as you can get, that's why he's in the hot seat.

[trish]

Thursday's hearing was a job interview, not a trial; reasonable doubt of guilt does not apply - reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh might lack the requisite judicial temperament does.

[broncofan]

So what if Kavanaugh is innocent?
Is there any evidence to prove he is guilty.
This is getting out of hand. Both had good sessions and nothing can be concluded from that. It's one's word against the other.
I don't know why we are pointing fingers when no evidence points to him. I know we all hate trump based on instinct, but let's not lose our minds and ability to think logically.

The evidence that points to him is testimony. Testimony is evidence. Is it as strong as a video of him raping a woman? No. But a woman who had no motive to lie appeared before Congress and gave very credible testimony about him attacking her. She provided notes from her visits to psychiatrists over the years where she discussed the effects of his actions, which makes fabrication or political motive impossible. After she testified in a restrained and thoughtful way, he blustered, told several obvious lies, and was combative about his drinking. He is very fortunate that he has never had to answer for his actions in a criminal context.

And he did demonstrate a lack of fitness for the position. Instead of participating in the process, he pretended to be a victim, refused to answer questions in a forthright way and made spurious accusations.

I agree with Stavros that it is very difficult to vet these judges on how they view the law. If they are asked about a pending legal matter they will simply say they cannot answer questions about cases that may come before the court. So I suppose that leaves questions about their own cases, questions about judicial philosophy and questions about matters that have been decided (the latter just to demonstrate their erudition and knowledge of precedent). We have some idea that what we'd get with Kavanaugh is going to be originalism when it comes to constitutional matters and textualism when it comes to statutory interpretation. I think he would probably be less pragmatic even than Scalia and his decisions would look a bit more like Clarence Thomas', just based on his second amendment interpretation which is appalling.

[buttslinger]

reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh might lack the requisite judicial temperament ....

TESTIFY TRISH!!!
Reasonable doubt, he was practically crying, and until Lindsey Graham rushed into save him, he was failing.
He was asked about Mark Judge and said "You'll have to ask him" Wrong answer, Brett.
The only reason we're having an FBI investigation is because two or three Republicans were going to vote NO.
NO to rapists. Kavanaugh's reputation hasn't been tarnished, Kavanaugh's beliefs have been tarnished under direct questioning. If Brett thinks he's been pressured, he should see what Collins and Murkowski will go through this week.

[collinswriters]

As you can clearly see, your problem with him is not the allegation but what you stated above. You should refer to what you dislike instead of hiding behind the allegation and saying anything you feel. No offense pls.

[collinswriters]

TESTIFY TRISH!!!
Reasonable doubt, he was practically crying, and until Lindsey Graham rushed into save him, he was failing.
He was asked about Mark Judge and said "You'll have to ask him" Wrong answer, Brett.
The only reason we're having an FBI investigation is because two or three Republicans were going to vote NO.
NO to rapists. Kavanaugh's reputation hasn't been tarnished, Kavanaugh's beliefs have been tarnished under direct questioning. If Brett thinks he's been pressured, he should see what Collins and Murkowski will go through this week.

You don't seem to understand what it means to present no evidence. I don't think someone has ever accused you falsely or wrongly. I am not saying Dr. Ford is lying, but come on, no evidence except your word? That makes no sense to me. I would like to believe ford but I am skeptical unlike you who believe blindly especially when it comes to politics and when no evidence is presented. Crazy world you wanna live in. No offense intended.

[collinswriters]

The evidence that points to him is testimony. Testimony is evidence. Is it as strong as a video of him raping a woman? No. But a woman who had no motive to lie appeared before Congress and gave very credible testimony about him attacking her. She provided notes from her visits to psychiatrists over the years where she discussed the effects of his actions, which makes fabrication or political motive impossible. After she testified in a restrained and thoughtful way, he blustered, told several obvious lies, and was combative about his drinking. He is very fortunate that he has never had to answer for his actions in a criminal context.

And he did demonstrate a lack of fitness for the position. Instead of participating in the process, he pretended to be a victim, refused to answer questions in a forthright way and made spurious accusations.

I agree with Stavros that it is very difficult to vet these judges on how they view the law. If they are asked about a pending legal matter they will simply say they cannot answer questions about cases that may come before the court. So I suppose that leaves questions about their own cases, questions about judicial philosophy and questions about matters that have been decided (the latter just to demonstrate their erudition and knowledge of precedent). We have some idea that what we'd get with Kavanaugh is going to be originalism when it comes to constitutional matters and textualism when it comes to statutory interpretation. I think he would probably be less pragmatic even than Scalia and his decisions would look a bit more like Clarence Thomas', just based on his second amendment interpretation which is appalling.

Let's not be ridiculous here. No possible motive? Testimony (in this case) is not evidence in any manner of means. It's just testimony and you need necessary evidence (proof beyond doubt) to backup the testimony. If every allegation in the world was only backed with testimony from the victim without knowledge of details like where the crime happened and specific time, about half (if not more) of the world's population would be in jail now. The witnesses she mentioned all denied such event and we are to just take the story as the truth. That's ludicrous in my opinion.
And let's not forget, this is in a political setting. People say or do whatever they can to get rid of their opposition (or those they dislike for one reason or the other). I am not implying that Dr. Ford is lying or wrong and I am not saying that Kavanaugh is saying the truth (He could be saying the truth since no substantial evidence points to him) but as I said in a previous reply, I am being skeptical.