Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[One Bad Pig]

Kavanaugh's op-ed, today

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an...dge-1538695822

Like I said....

[Terraceth]

He'll still be a strict constructionist, though.

Originalist. "Strict constructionist" is a term some politicians like to throw out but it's not something any judge I'm aware of claims to adhere to.

[oxmixmudd]

Playing the game that you're offering here, it is possible that he rejected advances she made having no interest in her and she's been holding a grudge ever since and finally had the opportunity to get her revenge. Sheesh. You're stretching mighty far here by weaving a web of what ifs ...

Where in the world do you conjure that particular characterization of what I said?

A web of what ifs?

I said that we don't have enough evidence to know for sure what happened. I said that the only one who clearly lied in the hearing is Kavanaugh per the testimony of those that were roommates and classmates as regards his partying and drunkenness. My statements about that only implied that the drunken behavior confirmed by multiple witnesses undercuts the capacity of his reputation to protect him from suspicion as concerns the possibility his drinking produced the event Ford Alleges. That is not weaving a scenario, it is not weaving a web of what ifs. You out in left field and swatting at a strawman.

to hold on to a story from someone who's credibility has started to unravel faster and faster what with her claims about the reason a second door was added to her house turning out to be as bogus as her claims she was afraid of flying (so she didn't want to come to D.C.) while regularly flying all over the place including overseas.

As I've said before. My position isn't one of granting one or the other a judgement of guilty or innocent. What I am about is granting both the possibility they could be telling the truth and the possibility they are not, and with-holding any pronouncements and especially any derogatory comments like the sort seen on these pages until all the evidence is in.

Jim

[Psychic Missile]

If I was a rapist I, like any other rapist, would deserve being publicly accused of my crime by my victim, proof or no proof, and being shunned by society. Why are you so defensive of hypothetical rapists and so dismissive of hypothetical rape victims? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[Psychic Missile]

Who was raped here? And if there is not a bit of credible evidence against someone should we just say, well since I don't like the man who nominated him so he needs to be destroyed anyways regardless of guilt or innocence?

Nobody, my original reply was to LPoT when she mentioned rapists. Accusations are evidence. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to not want him on the Supreme Court.

[Psychic Missile]

And if it's a false accusation, it really hurts people who have legitimate complaints.

Only if people are already predisposed to be skeptical of rape accusations, in which case the problem is the prevalence of rape apologists, not false accusations.

[Tassman]

Democrats are furious that the FBI couldn't find anything on Kavanaugh. Now they're accusing them of a cover-up.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ham-whitewash/

The FBI's new investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh was too limited in scope from the beginning. There was never a directive to the FBI to investigate a third assault allegation against Kavanaugh, or to probe his drinking habits and whether he lied about them to the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to a source briefed on the investigation. At least 40 witnesses were not contacted by FBI under Trump restrictions - neither the victim nor Kavanaugh himself. The FBI has not contacted dozens of potential corroborators or character witnesses and yet the Kavanaigh supporters are claiming a lack of corroborating evidence. It's a sham.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...anaugh-n916146

[NorrinRadd]

Where it stands now, Kavanaugh could easily sue her for defamation and win, assuming he could get a fair jury. But he won't do it because in this climate they would just accuse him of beating her up because he is an evil white man.

I think that's all the more reason to do it. They sowed the wind, now let's unleash the biggest firenado imaginable. There must be severe enough consequences that even the loony lefties can understand them and fear them.

[NorrinRadd]

I am giving her the benefit of the doubt. I think something happened to her. I don't think Kavanaugh did it. But someone probably did. She should have said something at the time. Not blaming her for not, but it would have made everything better for her over the next 30 years. I don't know if she actually believes Kavanaugh did it, was convinced falsely to believe Kavanaugh did it, or is actually lying about Kavanaugh doing it, or if Kavanaugh actually did it. BUT as it stands, there is no way to prove Kavanaugh did it, and if he didn't, then she is ruining his life forever over a lie or a mistake.

At this point, I think her story, and maybe her brain, has more holes than a box of Cheerios.

I can easily think of about a dozen different scenarios, with the one actually literally having Kavanaugh brutalize her and try to rape her being the least likely.

[NorrinRadd]

I think that if Kavanaugh is confirmed there is a good chance that the Democrats will find themselves with someone who now, for good reason, loathes liberals and their causes and will end up predisposed to decide against them.

Unfortunately, there's also the potential for it to work the other way: He could, consciously or unconsciously, grab his ankles to avoid even the appearance of partisanship.

[NorrinRadd]

One of my infamous asides....


I was once accused of having an affair with a young woman named Kendall in our congregation. An older woman who lived down the street started the rumor that this young woman's car was often seen at my house for hours on end while my wife's car was not there.

As it turned out, this young woman and my wife were in business together, so Kendall would come park at our house, then ride with my wife to the various venues where they were doing event planning.

Kendall's husband, Bobby, sang in our choir, and was always right behind me when I was preaching. When he heard about this, he came to me and said.... "I have an idea -- next Sunday, you stand in the pulpit and tell the congregation you want to confess that you were, indeed, having an affair, but it wasn't with Kendall --- it was with ME!" He said, he would then step out of the choir and stand beside me and we could stand there hugging it out.

Yeah, no.

Wuss. You totally should have done it.

[lilpixieofterror]

If I was a rapist I, like any other rapist, would deserve being publicly accused of my crime by my victim, proof or no proof, and being shunned by society. Why are you so defensive of hypothetical rapists and so dismissive of hypothetical rape victims? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[lilpixieofterror]

Only if people are already predisposed to be skeptical of rape accusations, in which case the problem is the prevalence of rape apologists, not false accusations.

[lilpixieofterror]

Nobody, my original reply was to LPoT when she mentioned rapists. Accusations are evidence. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to not want him on the Supreme Court.

Actually, you proved you love mob justice and are a complete loon that wants to take us back 500 years. No thanks.

[rogue06]

Nobody, my original reply was to LPoT when she mentioned rapists. Accusations are evidence. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to not want him on the Supreme Court.

Accusations are not evidence any more than an assertion is. They need to be corroborated by evidence.

He received a unanimous "well qualified" rating from the Bar Association (their highest rating), has authored more than 300 judicial opinions during his time on the bench several of which were directly quoted and became used in the majority opinion by the Supreme Court. His opinions have been as likely to be joined in full by Democrat-appointed colleagues (88.67%) as they are by his Republican-appointed colleagues (88.94%). These are among the reasons that the left-leaning USA Today declared when he was nominated that "Kavanaugh may be the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in generations." These are the reasons that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee almost never asked him about his ruling but spent most of their time making campaign speeches for their own re-elections.

The only "legitimate" reason for not wanting him on the Supreme Court is that you don't like his judicial philosophy and don't want the SCOTUS to shift to a more conservative tract. While understandable it was the previous Administration that so aptly put it, "elections have consequences"