Trump's Supreme Court nominee

[Stavros]

I watched as much as I could take, but I have to say that if Kavanaugh believes his reputation has been destroyed, then he must surely withdraw from the nomination, or does he think that the qualities required of a Supreme Court justice are independent of a 'destroyed reputation'? The irony of this is that if Kavanaugh is not being judged on his legal history as a clerk/judge in his various official positions, it is because 90% of that record has been deliberately withheld by the Republicans on the Committee.

That he may be judged on something that happened when he was a 1980s brat is par for the course when Americans subject senior officials to public scrutiny, even if it now appears to be part of the new Civil War and is ugly and demeaning to all because of that. Yet the one person who has not been subject to the same scrutiny, to the extent that Americans still don't know if he even pays taxes, is the President, whose poor judgement is once again on display.

I don't know if it matters now, Kavanaugh strikes me as being in emotional terms, temperamentally unsuited to high office, and like his President may make decisions burning with resentment towards Democrats, 'the left', the Clintons and anyone else he has accused, rather than make decisions based on the law.

A sorry state of affairs for a country to be in, but Americans have opted for confrontation, accusation and demonization as a standard tactic, and you must either change the way you do your politics, or this war will continue and leave casualties in its wake, be they guilty or innocent.

[buttslinger]

In other words, f-f-f-fuck me, the Republicans stole another one.
Lyin' cocksuckers.

[broncofan]

Kavanaugh strikes me as someone who has committed at least one sexual assault. While it is true that there is no longer legal liability for it, there's no reason it shouldn't be the subject of these hearings. Dr. Ford appeared to be someone dealing with demons, who carefully detailed a trauma she experienced and has discussed in therapy over many years. There's no reason Kavanaugh would not want it to be investigated by the FBI if he thinks it's a politically motivated sham, particularly given the fact that most women believe he did what he was accused of. If there was no basis for the accusation or it was a case of mistaken identity, an investigation would shed light on that.

Although I think the stuff he wrote in his yearbook shouldn't be disqualifying despite making him look like a chauvinist and a bully, he definitely lied about it, which speaks both to the seriousness with which he takes an oath and his credibility generally when speaking about matters that might incriminate him. How hard would it have been for him to say about the Renate comment "you know that was a hurtful and stupid thing to write. I really regret that." Instead he lied under oath by saying Renate Alumnus was intended to show his respect for her. It's not a provable lie but it's an obvious lie to anyone with an ounce of sense. Since when do Republicans not care about perjury? Didn't we have impeachment proceedings over that in recent memory?

[buttslinger]

Kavanaugh strikes me as someone who has committed at least one sexual assault. While it is true that there is no longer legal liability for it....

In Montgomery County he can be tried for a sexual assault 30 years ago. Maybe they did that for all the Catholic Priests. Kavanaugh was slipping when Lindsey Graham burst in, he was smirking when asked about the Devil's Triangle, (some Republican Aide changed the Wiki definition from sex game to drinking game during the hearings, or so they say). Then when asked about Judge, he said "you'll have to ask him"
Every one of those Republicans knew Kavanaugh was lying, every one of them knows Kavanaugh will be a Republican Party Operative on the Supreme Court.

If you think the 11 Republicans have their head up their ass, you should listen to the Trump supporters that call into C-Span. They have sailed way past lying to total delusion. South Carolina is Trumpistan. The Good Ole Boys Club most definitely know which side of the bread has the butter, Kavanaugh's approval among voters is the exact same number that approve of Trump, lies and sexual antics are only sins when the Democrats do it.

Congratulations, Brett, I can hear you laughing.
I sure hope the truth climbs on you one day and fucks you in the ass. Over.

[broncofan]

In Montgomery County he can be tried for a sexual assault 30 years ago.

That's interesting to hear. Perhaps there are other charges pending against Kavanaugh but wasn't Dr. Ford's accusation from more than thirty years ago?

[buttslinger]

That's interesting to hear. Perhaps there are other charges pending against Kavanaugh but wasn't Dr. Ford's accusation from more than thirty years ago?

I think maybe you're right and I'm wrong again, attempted rape in Md in the swingin' eighties was just a misdemeanor. The Post just put an article out, but I'm not going to muddy the waters with facts, this is war. 21 senators hear the exact same evidence, the results? A joke.

[Stavros]

With so much focus on the allegations of sexual assault, the curious comparison is with a man angry and pugnacious in his denunciation of the Democrats, yet supremely coy about answering questions that either relate to the legal issues on which he might be asked to form an opinion or reflect his political views. Thus he would not say if there are any limits to Presidential power in American law, and emails in which Kavanaugh discusses racial profiling have been withheld from the Committee as they are 'Confidential', plus -

Under questions from @SenBooker, Judge Kavanaugh refused to say it is morally or legally wrong to fire someone because they are gay. He refused to state his opinion on marriage equality. And he refused to state his role in the Bush WH effort to ban same sex marriage.

SenBlumenthal asked Judge Kavanaugh to stand up to President Trump’s outrageous attacks on the Judiciary. He refused.

Kamala Harris: I asked Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh whether he believes President Trump was correct, that ‘both sides’were to blame for Charlottesville. He refused to answer. This isn’t a difficult question. One side was wrong: the one with the torches and swastikas.

Feinstein:“BREAKING: Brett Kavanaugh was asked in 2004 about whether he was involved in the nomination of Bill Pryor. He said ‘I was not involved in handling his nomination’ Newly released emails show that's not true. Asked about how Pryor's interview went, he replied ‘CALL ME.
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo...Questions_.pdf

I would expect someone who wants to sit on the Supreme Court to make clear statements on issues of Rights and Responsibilities. But if the outrageous comments of Lindsay Graham are a guide, the law itself will be absent from the decision, as the BBC article suggested in a concise sentence:

A key difference in this battle is that Brett Kavanaugh has positioned himself not as jurist rising above the fray, but as a political combatant in the thick of the battle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45673702

On the other hand, you do have an open scrutiny for these important jobs, whereas in the UK we are told who is siitting on the Supreme Court after they have been appointed, by a commission drawn from a people who usually either know them directly or know someone who knows someone. Of then 10 judges on our Supreme Court (formed in 2005 from what used to be the Appellate Court of the House of Lords), at some stage in their careers, 8 studied law at either Oxford or Cambridge, which is unusual because at one time they were all male and all graduates of the same schools and universities, so after 600 years we are clearly more diverse than we used to be..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges...United_Kingdom

[buttslinger]

I think you pretty much nailed it there, Stavros, let's hope Mark Judge is as fragile as they say.
Wise men avoid sex and money, not because they're bad, because they're so good. mmmmm

[goatman]

That's interesting to hear. Perhaps there are other charges pending against Kavanaugh but wasn't Dr. Ford's accusation from more than thirty years ago?

The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. That being said, it'd take on HELLUVA crusading States Attorney(especially in Montgomery County of all places) to bring up charges on this...especially during an election year where there's ALREADY one hell of a bitter fight over who the next County Executive is going to be! Also, the Georgetown Prep alumni & the overall Bethesda-Chevy Chase crowd(the neighborhood not the Montgomery County public high school--though they're pretty bad too!) has a LOT of pull, a VERY LONG reach, & they hold grudges!

[broncofan]

The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. That being said, it'd take on HELLUVA crusading States Attorney(especially in Montgomery County of all places) to bring up charges on this...especially during an election year where there's ALREADY one hell of a bitter fight over who the next County Executive is going to be! Also, the Georgetown Prep alumni & the overall Bethesda-Chevy Chase crowd(the neighborhood not the Montgomery County public high school--though they're pretty bad too!) has a LOT of pull, a VERY LONG reach, & they hold grudges!

I didn't know that. I wonder if there have been any due process challenges for charges brought on very old assaults. I know there was at least one successful challenge to one prong of the rape shield statute in which an appeals courts held that it foreclosed an effective defense.

I read a paper a while back from the aclu where they said they opposed the abolition of statutes of limitations for sex crimes. The argument in favor of getting rid of a statute of limitations is that it allows victims to come forward years later given that they are often unable to report (fear of reprisal, shame, fear of character assassination). This makes particular sense in the case of minors who have been assaulted. In those cases one proposal was to toll the statute of limitations until they reached the age of majority.

The argument against getting rid of statutes of limitations is that it is difficult to defend a 30 year old accusation. If the defendant insists there was no relationship consensual or otherwise, it's difficult to establish an alibi. If they're claiming there's an ancient grudge, it's difficult to establish the motive for a false accusation. It's difficult to cross-examine the accuser effectively when most of the circumstances that are contemporaneous with the assault have been forgotten. However much I sympathize with victims I think it's probably a bad idea to charge cases that are decades old without physical evidence but maybe I'd change my mind if I read more about the subject.