Kavanaugh- Alleged victim comes forward

[mookiemcgee]

I mean, I said all this stuff already in this thread but appears to need repeating.

I love Gorusch and I'm not a big fan of Kavanaugh (for policy reasons). I think the White House should have pulled Kavanaugh a couple of weeks ago (or whenever these things came out) but, again, I'm not a fan. I'm not sure why I would look at this issue emotionally.

I believe the accuser believes that Kavanaugh assaulted her. I believe Kavanaugh when he says he didn't. Someone should investigate it (I would have pulled the nominee). The media is investigating it and have found nothing (except what I said above - basically engaging in a smear campaign against Kavanaugh). While I think the accuser would have come forward if this was Gorusch, everything that has happened since she came forward (the delay in the publication, the media campaign, etc.) is because this is the (perceived) swing vote at the Supreme Court and the mid-term elections. Everything that has happened since has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the MeToo Movement or the relative power of women. And almost everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

Also, I'm likely leaving the Libertarian party. They are becoming less serious, not more. I'd rather be a Never Trump Republican.

@riskllama I nominate this post for thread winner.

[Neoteny]

I mean, I said all this stuff already in this thread but appears to need repeating.

I love Gorusch and I'm not a big fan of Kavanaugh (for policy reasons). I think the White House should have pulled Kavanaugh a couple of weeks ago (or whenever these things came out) but, again, I'm not a fan. I'm not sure why I would look at this issue emotionally.

I believe the accuser believes that Kavanaugh assaulted her. I believe Kavanaugh when he says he didn't. Someone should investigate it (I would have pulled the nominee). The media is investigating it and have found nothing (except what I said above - basically engaging in a smear campaign against Kavanaugh). While I think the accuser would have come forward if this was Gorusch, everything that has happened since she came forward (the delay in the publication, the media campaign, etc.) is because this is the (perceived) swing vote at the Supreme Court and the mid-term elections. Everything that has happened since has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the MeToo Movement or the relative power of women. And almost everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

Also, I'm likely leaving the Libertarian party. They are becoming less serious, not more. I'd rather be a Never Trump Republican.

Yeah that's all fine, and mook seems impressed for some reason, but I'm not talking with Gabon about the media or what the parties are doing with the information. We're talking about the motivation for the women making the accusations. You can take that in whatever direction you want, I guess, but if you think it's founded in political tugs of war, then you're as big a shithead as they are.

[thegreekdog]

I mean, I said all this stuff already in this thread but appears to need repeating.

I love Gorusch and I'm not a big fan of Kavanaugh (for policy reasons). I think the White House should have pulled Kavanaugh a couple of weeks ago (or whenever these things came out) but, again, I'm not a fan. I'm not sure why I would look at this issue emotionally.

I believe the accuser believes that Kavanaugh assaulted her. I believe Kavanaugh when he says he didn't. Someone should investigate it (I would have pulled the nominee). The media is investigating it and have found nothing (except what I said above - basically engaging in a smear campaign against Kavanaugh). While I think the accuser would have come forward if this was Gorusch, everything that has happened since she came forward (the delay in the publication, the media campaign, etc.) is because this is the (perceived) swing vote at the Supreme Court and the mid-term elections. Everything that has happened since has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the MeToo Movement or the relative power of women. And almost everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

Also, I'm likely leaving the Libertarian party. They are becoming less serious, not more. I'd rather be a Never Trump Republican.

Yeah that's all fine, and mook seems impressed for some reason, but I'm not talking with Gabon about the media or what the parties are doing with the information. We're talking about the motivation for the women making the accusations. You can take that in whatever direction you want, I guess, but if you think it's founded in political tugs of war, then you're as big a shithead as they are.

Gabon's statements are entirely related to political tugs of war. I suspect (although he will deny it) that if Kavanaugh was a liberal justice, he wouldn't be bringing these things up.

[Neoteny]

I don't doubt that it's Gabon's motivation. I'm just picking apart his reasoning about the women's motivation.

[thegreekdog]

I don't doubt that it's Gabon's motivation. I'm just picking apart his reasoning about the women's motivation.

Yep, it's disturbing. Not sure what else you want me to say other than this whole thing just furthers the ridiculousness that politics are becoming.

[riskllama]

i agree. bringing something like that up like what, 35 years after the fact? bad form, i don't care who does it...

[riskllama]

I mean, I said all this stuff already in this thread but appears to need repeating.

I love Gorusch and I'm not a big fan of Kavanaugh (for policy reasons). I think the White House should have pulled Kavanaugh a couple of weeks ago (or whenever these things came out) but, again, I'm not a fan. I'm not sure why I would look at this issue emotionally.

I believe the accuser believes that Kavanaugh assaulted her. I believe Kavanaugh when he says he didn't. Someone should investigate it (I would have pulled the nominee). The media is investigating it and have found nothing (except what I said above - basically engaging in a smear campaign against Kavanaugh). While I think the accuser would have come forward if this was Gorusch, everything that has happened since she came forward (the delay in the publication, the media campaign, etc.) is because this is the (perceived) swing vote at the Supreme Court and the mid-term elections. Everything that has happened since has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the MeToo Movement or the relative power of women. And almost everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

Also, I'm likely leaving the Libertarian party. They are becoming less serious, not more. I'd rather be a Never Trump Republican.

@riskllama I nominate this post for thread winner.

agreed - tgd wins this thread.

[Neoteny]

i agree. bringing something like that up like what, 35 years after the fact? bad form, i don't care who does it...

Ah yes, the infamous bad form of bringing up a crime committed by a nominee to the highest court in the country. Just a terrible look.

[riskllama]

i agree. bringing something like that up like what, 35 years after the fact? bad form, i don't care who does it...

Ah yes, the infamous bad form of bringing up a crime committed by a nominee to the highest court in the country. Just a terrible look.

well, it does kinda look like it's being brought up for political reasons, does it not? i'm not saying he's not guilty, i'm just saying that the timing is a bit interesting to me, that's all.

[Neoteny]

The timing being his nomination to the biggest job in this country where his judgment is literally the main job responsibility?

[riskllama]

yeah, that's it.

[HitRed]

[TA1LGUNN3R]

i agree. bringing something like that up like what, 35 years after the fact? bad form, i don't care who does it...

Ah yes, the infamous bad form of timely accusing someone of a difficult to prove but easily believed crime who happens to be a nominee to the highest court in the country and happens to represent politics opposite of one's own and therefore threatens one's way of life. Just a terrible look.

ftfy

[Neoteny]

Oh man, the same thing all the other dickheads in this thread have been saying except cleverly inserted into my own statement. Oh no, how could I recover from this and how did Gorsuch just happen to avoid this easily believed accusation? Like, two nominees have been accused of sexual misconduct and suddenly it's just a thing women do. But TG is another poster I am just bowled over by this revelation of his opinions of women.

[thegreekdog]

Oh man, the same thing all the other dickheads in this thread have been saying except cleverly inserted into my own statement. Oh no, how could I recover from this and how did Gorsuch just happen to avoid this easily believed accusation? Like, two nominees have been accused of sexual misconduct and suddenly it's just a thing women do. But TG is another poster I am just bowled over by this revelation of his opinions of women.

You keep pretending that the Gorusch and Kavanaugh nominations are the same. You should stop doing that. They aren't the same. To understand how different they are you simply need to look at the hearings and the media coverage of the hearings BEFORE the accuser stepped forward. Democrats and the media were very critical of the Kavanaugh nomination well in advance of any sexual misconduct allegations; I suspect it was only because he would replace the swing vote on the Court. They were not critical of the Gorusch nomination. In fact, I remember virtually none of the Gorusch confirmation process.

So either you think they are the same, in which case you're dumb (which you're not) or you're pretending they're the same in which case you're being intellectually dishonest where there is no need to do so (which I don't think you care about).

[Neoteny]

You keep pretending that the Gorusch and Kavanaugh nominations are the same. You should stop doing that. They aren't the same. To understand how different they are you simply need to look at the hearings and the media coverage of the hearings BEFORE the accuser stepped forward. Democrats and the media were very critical of the Kavanaugh nomination well in advance of any sexual misconduct allegations; I suspect it was only because he would replace the swing vote on the Court. They were not critical of the Gorusch nomination. In fact, I remember virtually none of the Gorusch confirmation process.

So either you think they are the same, in which case you're dumb (which you're not) or you're pretending they're the same in which case you're being intellectually dishonest where there is no need to do so (which I don't think you care about).

So, I haven't really addressed this because I'm mostly just enjoying nailing down the unrepentant misogynists in this thread. But you really seem to want to talk about it, and it's a pretty good illustration of your failures to understand any position to the left of you despite your projected image of pride in even-handed discourse. Here you go.

I agree, the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations were very different circumstances. Now, I'm not sure exactly what media you've used to follow these nominations, but, from a purely political perspective, the view from not just the left, but centrist Dems too, is that the Gorsuch seat is a stolen seat. Not in the sense that anything illegal occurred, just in the sense that the oh so precious "political norms" were violated. The Garland nomination was an opportunity to roll back, or at least pause, a 60 or so year effort by the right to pack the court with ultra-conservative justices. It was an opportunity to soften a seat held by an absolute ogre like Scalia into a relatively harmless centrist position. I know you think Gorsuch will be a model of judicial restraint, but Gorsuch represents another point on the line allowing the Supreme Court to roll back decades of judicial progress, and noting he is better than Scalia is a joke of a bar to clear. So, politically speaking, that seat is not a write-off because it replaced a conservative with a conservative. That's a myopic and, frankly, stupid view.

Now, there's a real gem in your discussion of Gorsuch's nomination. You don't remember anything about it politically or in the media, therefore it must have been uneventful. What the f*ck are you reading Greek? The Dems filibustered him, the Reps did the "nuke", and real fucking shitheads like Manchin and Heitkamp helped confirm him. I think he was out of committee in less than a week, but the full senate was a clusterfuck.

Kavanaugh represents the last ditch opportunity to obstruct the probably foregone result of a fully reactionary Supreme Court, so there is definitely a sense of desperation there, though it is a hole Democrats themselves helped dig. Your confidence in the maintenance of Roe v Wade notwithstanding, there are plenty of other precedents the conservatives would love to overturn, and they will continue ruining labor, voting rights, and other protections. And I have no doubt Roe will eventually turn up on the HUD. So you frame Kavanaugh as simply replacing a swing vote with a reliably conservative vote as if, politically, that's not the worst case scenario in that situation for the liberals. They are well in their wheelhouse to be upset about that.

So, with that political background restated we can address the two nominations with fairly clear eyes. We have the "stolen seat" and the last bastion of a vaguely centrist court to compare. The stakes are high in both situations, though driven by different political forces. Both of these situations are an opportunity to use any political means necessary to completely sandbag the nominee, and the Dems have done that to a degree, but your political spectacles need to be pretty warped to view this as only a red to red and a swing to red whinefest. There's a history to this discussion, and if you can't remember a year and a half ago, I don't really know what to tell you Greek.

With this renewed vision of these nominees, we can continue to discuss how assault allegations filter through it. You know, the topic of conversation before you forced surface level politics into it. If women are truly the vindictive, conniving, and manipulative beasts that they supposedly are, why did none of them cash in that big Soros paycheck and accuse Gorsuch of assault during the "stolen seat" circus? Why is it only Kavanaugh who is looking like a bigger and bigger scumbag with every passing day? The vengeance aspect to Gorsuch seems like it would be irresistible to the cold-hearted harpies we know as "women."

Which of you dumbshits is going to be the first to claw "TIMING" at your crumb-encrusted keyboards?

[Neoteny]

They were not critical of the Gorusch nomination. In fact, I remember virtually none of the Gorusch confirmation process.

It's a good thing you already "won this thread," greek, because holy shit I can't get over this.

[thegreekdog]

They were not critical of the Gorusch nomination. In fact, I remember virtually none of the Gorusch confirmation process.

It's a good thing you already "won this thread," greek, because holy shit I can't get over this.

I've written too many words in this thread already. It's not that I don't remember the Gorusch nomination. It's that I don't remember the Gorusch nomination having the same vitriol as pre-accusation Kavanaugh. The dissension was entirely about Garland; we can debate whether it was the Democrats or the Republicans that caused Garland and Gorusch (it was the Democrats), but the only substantive judicial discussion about Gorusch involved whether he really wanted a truck driver to freeze to death.

it's a pretty good illustration of your failures to understand any position to the left of you despite your projected image of pride in even-handed discourse.

I'm not in favor of even-handed discourse. Where did you get that idea? I think the left is disturbing and many on the left mentally unstable with no real idea for how their positions on issues affects themselves, nevermind other people. Now, I happen to think the right is in a similar spot, but that's not support of even-handed discourse.

The Garland nomination was an opportunity to roll back, or at least pause, a 60 or so year effort by the right to pack the court with ultra-conservative justices.

Oh my... 60 year effort to pack the court with ultra-conservatives. Like Sotomayor, Kennedy, and Kagan? Or maybe Roberts, that arch ultra conservative?

Gorsuch seat is a stolen seat.

Yes, I remember this. Very different than Kavanaugh; very easy to understand why it was different than Kavanaugh.

the full senate was a clusterfuck.

Compared to what? Compared to Sotomayor and Kagan? Or compared to Kavanaugh? I'm doing my comparison to Kavanaugh. And the clusterfuck wasn't caused by "oh no, we might not be able to keep killing babies!" or "I hate Trump!" The clusterfuck was caused by "oh shit, we did something to f*ck the Republicans and now the Republicans are fucking us using the same position!"

So you frame Kavanaugh as simply replacing a swing vote with a reliably conservative vote as if, politically, that's not the worst case scenario in that situation for the liberals. They are well in their wheelhouse to be upset about that.

I absolutely agree. Democrats should be quite upset that the Supreme Court may be largely originalist and/or conservative rather than activist and/or liberal. No point in arguing about that one other than that all I seem to read/hear is about Roe v. Wade.

So, with that political background restated we can address the two nominations with fairly clear eyes. We have the "stolen seat" and the last bastion of a vaguely centrist court to compare. The stakes are high in both situations, though driven by different political forces. Both of these situations are an opportunity to use any political means necessary to completely sandbag the nominee, and the Dems have done that to a degree, but your political spectacles need to be pretty warped to view this as only a red to red and a swing to red whinefest

I mean... you literally spent paragraph after paragraph talking (whining?) about the swing to a conservative court. We can pretend that not wanting a conservative leaning Supreme Court is some kind of overarching American value or whatever the f*ck, but you've made a clearly convincing case that this is an effort to have the court be not conservative. In other words, you view this as only a red to red and a swing to red whinefest: Gorusch is a stolen seat; Kavanaugh upsets the preferred blue team balance.

For point of historical reference, here are the senate votes for the current Supreme Court members:

- Kennedy (Reagan) - 97-0
- Thomas (Bush I) - 52-48
- RBG (Clinton) - 96-3
- Breyer (Clinton) - 87-9
- Roberts (Bush II) - 78-22
- Alito (Bush II) - 58-42
- Sotomayor (Obama) - 68-31
- Kagan (Obama) - 63-37
- Gorusch (Trump) - 54-45

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I'm mostly just enjoying nailing down the unrepentant misogynists

Nice symmetry move, bro.

[saxitoxin]

This is actually turning out to be great for us. Any other President would have withdrawn support from Kavanaugh by now, but Trump has not. He's cultivating the Manhattan favor-based economy. Once we shove Kavanaugh down the throats of the resistance - as will happen - he'll owe Trump a favor which Trump will be able to redeem on the future ruling of his choice. That wouldn't have been the case if none of this had happened.

Between this and the New York Times' Rod Rosenstein article - which will give Trump political cover to either fire Rosenstein or keep him and, in that magnanimous act, ensure his future loyalty - the resistance has been doing a good job of offering itself up as a piñata this week allowing Trump to consolidate his power on all fronts.

[thegreekdog]

I mean...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics ... index.html

"Beto is way hotter than you." - Seriously. You people suck at politics.

Also, CNN, realtalk - If we listen to the video, we can hear the "Beto is way hotter than you" comment. Maybe address it in your article? What? No? Oh, right, you don't want to make the point that these people suck at politics. Gotcha. Carry on. Another example of "why trump won" in action.

[Neoteny]

I've written too many words in this thread already. It's not that I don't remember the Gorusch nomination. It's that I don't remember the Gorusch nomination having the same vitriol as pre-accusation Kavanaugh. The dissension was entirely about Garland; we can debate whether it was the Democrats or the Republicans that caused Garland and Gorusch (it was the Democrats), but the only substantive judicial discussion about Gorusch involved whether he really wanted a truck driver to freeze to death.

That's a remarkably hard backtrack. But yeah, many of the Dems already made up their mind about opposing Gorsuch on principle. That said, there were three Dems who voted for Gorse and theoretically some Republicans would take assault accusations seriously (lmao did that read as fucking stupid as it felt to type?). Why didn't a woman use this opportunity to f*ck up another man's career? The numbers are the same (well, similar, McCain finally shuffled the f*ck off, I guess) even if the political situation isn't.

I'm not in favor of even-handed discourse. Where did you get that idea? I think the left is disturbing and many on the left mentally unstable with no real idea for how their positions on issues affects themselves, nevermind other people. Now, I happen to think the right is in a similar spot, but that's not support of even-handed discourse.

Lol ok then. Tell me more about how hard it is being the only non-deranged person alive. Like, Gabon and Tails ostensibly have some sort of excuse in being rejected and humiliated by every woman in their life, so they write off fifty percent of the population because clearly the problem is the women. But your brand of general misanthropy is a symptom of chronic reaction that I hadn't considered in my previous evaluations of you. Duly noted.

Oh my... 60 year effort to pack the court with ultra-conservatives. Like Sotomayor, Kennedy, and Kagan? Or maybe Roberts, that arch ultra conservative?

I'm just going to give up any hope of you ever recognizing the Overton Window as a thing.

Yes, I remember this. Very different than Kavanaugh; very easy to understand why it was different than Kavanaugh.

Hm, yes different from Kavanaugh, yes.

Compared to what? Compared to Sotomayor and Kagan? Or compared to Kavanaugh? I'm doing my comparison to Kavanaugh. And the clusterfuck wasn't caused by "oh no, we might not be able to keep killing babies!" or "I hate Trump!" The clusterfuck was caused by "oh shit, we did something to f*ck the Republicans and now the Republicans are fucking us using the same position!"

Compared to your since modified comment of not remembering the hearings.

I absolutely agree. Democrats should be quite upset that the Supreme Court may be largely originalist and/or conservative rather than activist and/or liberal. No point in arguing about that one other than that all I seem to read/hear is about Roe v. Wade.

Seems like your media of choice is to blame there. Maybe broaden your horizons some.

I mean... you literally spent paragraph after paragraph talking (whining?) about the swing to a conservative court. We can pretend that not wanting a conservative leaning Supreme Court is some kind of overarching American value or whatever the f*ck, but you've made a clearly convincing case that this is an effort to have the court be not conservative. In other words, you view this as only a red to red and a swing to red whinefest: Gorusch is a stolen seat; Kavanaugh upsets the preferred blue team balance.

Lol it's not just about upsetting the balance. It's about creating a court able and willing to overturn every conservative loss since, what, the Warren court? They are nearly there, and Kavanaugh brings them pretty damn close. That's a much bigger deal than your typical conservative leaning court. But activism clearly doesn't bother you when it's your team doing it.

[Neoteny]

I'm mostly just enjoying nailing down the unrepentant misogynists

Nice symmetry move, bro.

What move is that? Constantly owning your dumb ass? Good on him then.

I mean...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics ... index.html

"Beto is way hotter than you." - Seriously. You people suck at politics.

Also, CNN, realtalk - If we listen to the video, we can hear the "Beto is way hotter than you" comment. Maybe address it in your article? What? No? Oh, right, you don't want to make the point that these people suck at politics. Gotcha. Carry on. Another example of "why trump won" in action.

It would be terrible if this happened to a person.

[thegreekdog]

That's a remarkably hard backtrack. But yeah, many of the Dems already made up their mind about opposing Gorsuch on principle. That said, there were three Dems who voted for Gorse and theoretically some Republicans would take assault accusations seriously (lmao did that read as fucking stupid as it felt to type?). Why didn't a woman use this opportunity to f*ck up another man's career? The numbers are the same (well, similar, McCain finally shuffled the f*ck off, I guess) even if the political situation isn't.

Gross, it's not a backtrack. There weren't protesters in the Gorusch hearings. There wasn't ridiculous Democrat grandstanding in the Gorusch hearings. There weren't those silly women who dress up in red from that (hyper realistic, definitely going to happen in the US) show standing around everywhere like weird homeless nuns.

Lol ok then. Tell me more about how hard it is being the only non-deranged person alive. Like, Gabon and Tails ostensibly have some sort of excuse in being rejected and humiliated by every woman in their life, so they write off fifty percent of the population because clearly the problem is the women. But your brand of general misanthropy is a symptom of chronic reaction that I hadn't considered in my previous evaluations of you. Duly noted.

To be fair, I don't hate all people, just stupid people.

Seems like your media of choice is to blame there. Maybe broaden your horizons some.

Perhaps. Seems pretty clear to me from the hearings themselves that the issue is primarily about abortion and secondarily about whether Kavanaugh would somehow prevent a Trump impeachment. I can understand the former being important to liberals. I don't get the latter given how unlikely it is that any impeachable offenses would come out against Trump (and trust me, I would much rather have President Pence (or Cruz or Rubio) than President Trump). If there are other issues sitting out there, please certainly let me know.

Lol it's not just about upsetting the balance. It's about creating a court able and willing to overturn every conservative loss since, what, the Warren court? They are nearly there, and Kavanaugh brings them pretty damn close. That's a much bigger deal than your typical conservative leaning court. But activism clearly doesn't bother you when it's your team doing it.

Yeah, it's pretty exciting actually. I would love to see what happens honestly. A 5-4 conservative leaning judiciary (Barrett is the next nominee liberal friends and she hates abortion) with Justice Roberts as the swing vote striking down all the legislation proposed and signed by the 2020 Democratic Congress and president. New court-packing scandal? Andrew Jackson "enforce this assholes" kind of deal? Tyranny of the majority? Supreme Court justices accosted at their homes and restaurants?

And it's not activism if you are interpreting written law and not making up your own. It just so happens that conservatives tend to believe this is the right way of judgifying.

It would be terrible if this happened to a person.

I enjoy Ted Cruz at times. He's not my favorite but I appreciate his combination of intelligence and assholery. I like him better than Rubio who comes off as too earnest.

[spurgistan]

I mean...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics ... index.html

"Beto is way hotter than you." - Seriously. You people suck at politics.

Also, CNN, realtalk - If we listen to the video, we can hear the "Beto is way hotter than you" comment. Maybe address it in your article? What? No? Oh, right, you don't want to make the point that these people suck at politics. Gotcha. Carry on. Another example of "why trump won" in action.

I mean, something mean somebody says while doing a mean (but hilarious) thing to a terrible person is not quite a news story unto itself, no? And... you think trump "won" because of some lefty factually referring to ted cruz as less attractive than beto o'rourke, which ted kinda invited by asking us to laugh at a sexy picture of beto o'rourke (I can assume that the jester was referring obliquely to this tweet? Trump "won" thanks to tax cuts and white anger.