I'm having trouble with exactly the definition of "sex offender" is. Brett Kavanaugh is maybe a decade older than me, and I honestly couldn't recount events of a single high school party that I went to. I have a couple of vague revolutions of a couple of rooms filled with people, and not much else. I do know that if it was something that upset her but he was no big deal to him, that she would remember and he would probably forget. That's the way memory works - things with strong emotional components stick, mundane things don't. I used to have this indoor cat that would always chase after squirrels whenever he was let out. He would never come close. Then one time he managed to sneak up on one and grab it. As soon as he did he turned around and looked at me with a confused look on his face, as squirrel squirmed out of his grasp and ran up a tree. If I were to guess, that is my best guess as to what happened here - a goofy kid trying to be macho because that is what society and hormones told him he should be. He probably crossed a line but it was a different time with different rules. It was the kind of thing that, at the very least, he should be deeply ashamed of, but I get the feeling that Kavanaugh doesn't really do shsme. I'm guessing that he was oblivious at the time to the damage he caused. I seriously can't imagine anything more than a sad, furtive grope was ever on the table. The fact that people used to be able to get away with violating women casually without even realizing it, but no longer can is a great advertisement for liberalism, imo. SJWs FTW. The one think I am entirely sure of is that everybody who this thing touches comes off looking mean, petty, and vindictive (excepting Ford). Nobody comes away from this untarnished. When I see Clarence Thomas, the first thing I think of is "the perv". Every time Kavanaugh rules on the court, I'm sure for the rest of my life, "frat boy douchebag" will be the first thing I think. God help them if Kavanaugh and Thomas rule together in a narrow defeat of a womens issue in the coming decades. Even if I dont want to call Kavanaugh a sex offender, he has done nothing in this process but demonstrate why I would never put him anywhere near the Supreme Court. One of the few government institutions that I've always had faith in is the Supreme Court. Once confirmed Kavanaughs greatest contribution to history will be to weaken public faith in that institution over the next few decades. Hope he's proud. As I said before, even after he's gone, Trump will continue destroying the country with his devisiveness for decades. Even once we've gotten rid of him, we still wont be able to shake off his dischord.
The difference is that there isn’t a shred of corroborative evidence against Kavanaugh. It’s not even clear if Kavanaugh new any of his accusers. It’s kind of hard to defend Al Franklin with this pic: If nothing else, the Monica Lewinski case was text book sexual harassment in the offense against Bill Clinton. He followed that up with lying about it on national tv. As far as the rape accusations, Juanita Broadrick at least had details including when, where, how which included witness corroboration of her condition imeadiatly after the rape. Where were the Democrats “Believe the Victim” with Juanita Broadrick? All of John Conyers accusers were people he new and worked with. His time as a public servant are full of scandles, Kavanaugh hasn’t had so much as a sniff of a scandal. Additionally the accusations against Kavanaugh are completely out of character to who he has been during his professional life. It’s very hard to imagine he suddenly stopped abusing wemon once he graduated. Bill was a well known womanizer all his life, Conyers life was full of scandles and Franken has a pic he can’t escape.
I personally don’t think Kavanaugh has any enterest in going after Roe v Wade. But if your worried about a Supreme Court Justice legislating a conservative agenda from the bench, your really not going to like Amy Coney Barrett. I do think she would go after Roe v Wade. And make no doubt about it, she’s next up if the Dems have their way with Kavanaugh. She’s already been vetted and passed a background check.
Honestly I wouldn't even like Amy Coney Barrett, she's far too Catholic for my taste and there's no question that she'd seek to ban abortion outright among other things related to a religious opinion rather than a legal opinion.
Kavanaugh has been proven to have lied repeatedly. She openly asked for the FBI investigation. People who are intentionally making up things don't do that. Kavanaugh's calendar shows that he was with the people Ford said he was. It shows he was drinking as Ford testified that he was already drunk when she arrived. That much of her story is corroborated by Kavanaugh's own calendar. The fact that time passed before she came forward doesn't make her story less believable. That is normal as is people not coming forward at all, ever. Had she gone to the authorities they would have actually interviewed the people named to be in the room. They wouldn't have just relied on a statement written by that person with their attorney.
This is the difference between our logic; I understand this Ford/Kavanaugh nonsense can not be proven either way. I also understand that you nor I can prove Kavanaugh will make decisions based on retribution. Or any other judge considering how piss poor the Democrats have ran this kangaroo court. The only way it can be proven is if Kavanaugh openly admits it. Im not going to waste time on hypotheticals and what ifs. People like you and your narcissistic beliefs follow the foundation of guilty until proven innocent. You feel its Kavanaughs responsibility to prove he is innocence, never mind that its impossible for him to do such thing. Sure, you smirk, mock and say 'but but its just a job interview'. It has nothing to do with a job interview and all about your narrow minded tribal thinking that you know best for everyone. Republicans have done it for decades and now the extreme leftist like yourself are doing it. Its disgusting and dangerous. Here is over 100 decisions overturned. What is that about precedence not being recognized? This whole recognizing precedence nonsensical talk ranks up there with the most ignorant reasons not to support a judge. Really, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions Yes, its called having bi-partisan support. It is not a super majority. Having 100% of one party ruling with 0% support of the other is how we end up with extremist like Thomas, Kagan and Sotomeyer. These three judges have no business on the SCOTUS, much less being judges. Getting 40% support of a party is not that hard when non-partisan judges are selected.
Why do people keep on referring to this phrase in context to something that isn't a criminal court case? The point of that phrase is that a high bar needs to be placed in order to punish an individual. If you are going to setence someone to years in prison, you better damn well make sure the judgement is accurate beyond a doubt. When it comes to employment especially to a privileged position such as a judge to the highest court in the nation, often the mere suspicion is enough for an employer to go "eh... I'm not touching that". This is a glorified job interview. Keep that in mind. The fact that he has clearly lied multiple times to defend himself in his sworn testimony should be enough to disqualify him as a justice to the highest court in the land.
Its really nuts how this is the lefts biggest concern. I dont see Roe v Wade being overturned earlier. If Roberts supported that POS Obamacare, then I dont see him touching this either. The only way Roe V Wade gets overturned is if it becomes a states right issue. There is much more to Kavanaugh than to be worried about this.
I agree. Kavanaugh's biggest issue is that he places his partisanship on his chest. He is an obvious GOP shill.
You're absolutely right. We are not trying to crucify Kavanaugh ... literally at least. First, the term 'innocent until proven guilty' is not limited to criminal matters. When the narrative is switched to 'guilty until proven innocent', one can set the bar so low that its absolutely impossible to prove otherwise. For starters, as some have mentioned here, one can say 'its Kavanaughs responsibility to prove he's innocent'. Then they set the bar even lower by bringing up 30 year old accusations that are impossible to prove otherwise. Never mind all of the alleged witnesses do not support the accusers claim.
It absolutely is. Kavanaugh isn't entitled to a Supreme Court position. An employer can deny you a job from merely being suspicious of you and they don't need a criminal court level investigation to determine that suspicion. The fact that he has explicitly lied several times in his sworn testimony from stating that he had no ties to his Yale admission to stating that "devil's triangle" was a drinking game should disqualify him to the highest judicial nomination in the country.
I doubt they ever openly stated that there is a consiracy by the right wing and a prominent GOP presidential administration to take them down. Neither had a rich history of being involved in a partisan legal process to take down a opposition party's President. Hell, Sotomeyer started her Federal Circuit Court career under Bush Sr and Kagan was recoorecomm by one of the most conservative judges in recent memory, Scalia.
Im not sure what all of that has to do with being a partisan hack on the SCOTUS. But hey, dont let me stop your rambling.
I don't know. I thought clear evidence for being a partisan hack was shouting conspiracy theories about the Clintons and people being butthurt over Trump's election in a Senate testimony and having a large portion of your career attempting to take down an opposition party's President for a consenting blow job. Having your career as a Federal Circuit Court judge begin by being nominated by the opposition party you claim isn't helping your claim of being a partisan hack either.
No, he's been alleged to have lied, not proven. She asked for an FBI investigation for the same reason she lied about not being able to fly....she wanted anything that would delay the confirmation. Literally no part of her story is corroborated by anything because her story relies on her being present at a party that no one agrees that she was ever at.....and her close personal friend said that it never happened at any point either with her or without her. The fact that a group of friends hung out doesn't place her with them so it doesn't corroborate anything.
Well unfortunately not everyone agrees with that. There are some people who are pieces of **** that are in support of lynching people without evidence of wrongdoing. We'd be better off if there weren't people like that, but there's not a lot that can be done to rid the world of them.
Here I'm talking about not being entitled to one of the highest positions in the country and Bobby is talking about lynching. Keep on beating the **** out of that poor strawman Bobby .
Even Republicans found her far more believable than Kavanaugh. You are insulting her because your politics don't align with her's. Regardless of what your believe about her - it's clear that Kavanaugh doesn't conduct himself in the manner of a judge and should not be a member of any court.
