Anthony Kennedy Retires

[willowtreewren]

Quote

    To be fair, when the sitting PO(TU)S is a known sexual predator, why should that be a stumbling block for an appointee for the SCOTUS? Smacks my head!


Don't forget that there is another sexual predator on the Court already. 

BOOM!

[Rerun]

I was thinking GOP knew they would pull a cat out of the couch so they went a head and got letters of acknowledgment  of character.  Remembering the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas trial.  Can't say anything bad about Clarence or you are a racist! 

I do agree about turtle Mitch.  I would like to watch him eat a sandwich. 

I just think all this ME TOO business has gone way off the track going back to High School 40 years ago.  Really?  We could go to "what she was wearing"  A one piece swimsuit.  She was 15 at a drinking party.  Dah

[Jean]

I agree with that Rerun. Going back how many years??? Good Grief, talk about digging for anything. And to top it off, he was not succesful in doing so and has 65 letters from those who worked with or for him and they are all complimentary.( which if I were on his team, I would have been sure to have them on hand, knowing that the Dems were going to attack him one way or another.) Also if a bunch of 15 year olds were drinking and partying, was she the only person who was not drunk?? This has not even been verified and the Dems are chomping at the bit. They want to get rid of him any way possible. If the only thing he ever did was wrong was that while drinking he attempted to have sex with her AND WAS NOT ABLE TO. This is just another way the Dems are trying to annoy Our President.

[MooseMom]

Allegedly, he didn't merely "try to have sex with her".  He put his hand over her mouth so that she couldn't scream for help.

No one was "digging" for this.  This information was offered.   And Chuck Grassley knew about it.

This is so typical....excusing men's violent and disgusting behaviour because they were drunk.

[Jean]

Allegedly M.M. remember that. Nearly all of her story is also allegedly. Whether the libs are digging or not, and you know they were, is not what counts. She has no witness and does not even know where the allegedly took place. Excusing his "violent" behavior with his drinking is not even a question yet, since she is so unsure and does not even know he was drunk or if he was. I dont excuse men's violent behavior just because they are drunk , there is no excuse for any man to be violent to a woman.

[MooseMom]

But Jean, if she's really so uncertain about her testimony, why would she risk so much, especially in this volatile political and social climate, what with Incel and such lurking about, and come forward with this?  What would be the point?

She IS sure, however, that whoever it was that attacked her WAS drunk.  If he was NOT drunk, well, that's even worse!

Now, I can see how perhaps Kavanaugh and his buddy (who has actually written some books on his drinking his way through school) might have been too drunk to remember what they did.  These sorts of things, done in a drunken stupor, seem to conveniently evaporate from the memories of young men.  But this woman remembers clearly enough that she was bothered by it years later to the extent that she told a therapist AND her husband about it.  This is not the sort of thing a woman makes up to tell her husband.

So, either this woman is lying or she is misremembering the event.  Or, Kavanaugh and his friend are lying or they were both too drunk to have remembered what they did.

You're right, though, in that as far as we know right now, there is no forensic evidence, and knowing that, Kavanaugh knows he can probably get away with it.  And THAT is who will be judging us all from the bench of The Supreme Court of the United States.

And remember, just because she has no witness doesn't mean it didn't happen.  But we are not in a criminal court.  We are in the process of selecting a Supreme Court Judge, and we will all be able to make our own decision about whether or not this man can be trusted.

Kavanaugh's buddy sounds like a real charmer.  He talks about how certain women should be "struck regularly, like gongs".  He also blathers on about how men should feel the "awesome power of … male uncontrollable passion."

https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school-friend-christine-ford-2018-9

They should put THIS guy under oath and make HIM testify.

[Rerun]

Well, we do know the accuser is a left wing activist and walked in the girls march with a vagina HAT on so she hates Trump.  Kavanaugh did STOP when it was obvious she said NO. Credit for that? At 15 if I went to a party I was looking for a 'little' fun with boys.  Maybe a kiss??  So, she is probably not perfectly innocent.  This is where boys and girls are different as much as feminists try to say we are the same.  Boys think about sex 90 percent of the time and girls maybe 10 and boys dream of penetration where girls think of kissing and cuddling. 

They are going to drag this poor guy through the mud.  I hope they ask him if he was a horny boy and I hope he says YES, I jacked off everyday.  Like most boys that age do; if truth be told.  Or, they just brag; if truth be told.

In my high school we would meet in the library... so 'Matt' (not his real name) could tell us about sex because he was active with his girlfriend.  Oh, man, I thought it was gross but the guys were drooling!  True That! 

Watching CBS this morning it was a reality check to hear about this accuser talking about being thrown down on a bed and groped and hand placed over her mouth and HE STOPPED.  AND then Elizabeth Smart talking about being kidnapped and raped everyday and multiple times a day with this man and his wife right there watching and encouraging him.  She was 14 years old.  She was forced to drink so much alcohol that she puked and passed out in it and woke up with her hair stuck to the floor - and they laughed at her.  OMG   

It is like comparing a 15 year old not getting "her latte" on the way to school....   and a 15 year old girl not eating all weekend and can't wait to go to school to eat free breakfast.  Okay not a good example.... but ... think about it.  Someone always has it worse. 

F. Chuck Schumer is a snake in the grass.  What they don't think about... is if Kavanaugh gets confirmed... he will be ruling on "their" cases.  I hope Kavanaugh has a GOOD memory.

[Simon Dog]

The dirty tricks are being pulled by the gun control flagbearers in the Senate (Feinstein, Schumer) because Kavanaugh once voted that issue based on what the constitution says rather than desired public policy.  He even went so far as to say a judge's desired outcome on a case should have nothing to do with the decision that judge renders.

The opposition has nothing to do with him being a bad judge, just one the opponents feel will issue rulings not to their liking.

But Jean, if she's really so uncertain about her testimony, why would she risk so much, especially in this volatile political and social climate, what with Incel and such lurking about, and come forward with this?  What would be the point?

Their is clear record that her politics are aligned with those opposed to the nomination. Her testimony should be viewed in the same light as a witness in a criminal trial who has been offered immunity for his crimes in return for the testimony.

[MooseMom]

Simon Dog, leave it to you to make all of this about guns.  That's not the issue here, as much as you'd like it to be.  No, the issues are abortion and whether or not a sitting President can be indicted.  Kavanaugh was all in favor of hassling Clinton (who was indeed a sexual predator, in my view), but only afterwards decided that, no, a pending criminal trial of a sitting president might be too onerous.  We want to be able to get rid of Trump once it becomes clear that he's a felon whether he is a sitting president or not.  So no, it's not about guns.  Dearie me.

Do you honestly think she would go through all of this because of her political views?  And where is this "clear record" of which you speak? 

And no, her testimony, if given before a Senate committee, should not be viewed in that light because if she is lying, then she should be charged with perjury.  I don't know from where you get the notion of "immunity".

And of course opponents to Kavanaugh don't want him on the bench if they believe he will issue rulings not to their liking!!  That's the way it is these days, and you can thank Mitch for that.  That's why he refused to accept any nominations by Obama even though he still had eleven months left in his term.  He didn't want a judge who he believed might issue rulings not to his liking!!!   Well, what goes around, comes around because midterms are only a few weeks away, and the American people should therefore get a say since it is the Senate who votes on nominees to the Court.

Rerun, who cares if she is a left wing activist?  What's wrong with that, anyway?  So what if she hates Trump or she marched in the women's march wearing a pussy hat?  Why does that matter?  If Kavanaugh did attempt to rape her and put his hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming, should it matter what her politics are?   But if she is lying, then she should be prosecuted if she has given "alternative facts" to the FBI and/or Congress.

And yes, I also hope they ask Kavanaugh, who has agreed to testify, all about the dirty details of his well-documented drunkenness and of that of his buddy.  Remember it was Kavanaugh who told Ken Starr to be sure to ask all about the dirty details when Bill Clinton was being questioned, so you betcha, let's keep up that tradition.  I wanna hear all about Kavanaugh's "dreams of penetration" and how many times he jerked off each day (your words).  Yeah, let's drag him through the mud like they dragged Anita Hill through the mud.

Bragging and dreaming of sex 99 percent of the time is what boys do, but again, that's no excuse for trying to rape a young girl and putting his hand over her mouth so she can't escape or call for help.  Dreaming is not that same as doing.  And no, Kavanaugh did NOT stop when she told him "no" because he didn't give her a chance to tell him "no"; his hand was over her mouth, remember?

If this man is innocent, then he doesn't have anything to worry about, does he?  I really do hope, though, that the Senate brings in this Mark Judge character.  Talk about a nasty piece of work.  Maybe there is a witness after all.  Let's hear him speak under oath.

Edited to add:  Why is there such a rush?  Mitch was perfectly happy to let Scalia's seat stay empty for over a year, so why is Kavanaugh's confirmation vote being rushed through?  Is it because Grassley knew about this allegation and was hoping the rest of us would never find out?

[Rerun]

Don't blame Grassley, DiFi had the information too.  I agree, let it wait until after November 8th when there is more Republican seats to the House and Senate. 

[Bill Peckham]

I agree, let it wait until after November 8th when there is more Republican seats to the House and Senate.

This is the right attitude. Wait until the next Congress is seated

[iolaire]

Maybe now that the conservatives pick Russia over country maybe they can also be come friendly with the Taliban and Islamic extremists as they share similar values?
The Underground Girls of Kabul
Page 102 (the words of a Swedish female author):
In essence, it is the tired old attempt to dismiss a rape victim - did she wear something provocative?  If so, she is responsible, at least in part, for being attacked. The idea that men are savages who can never control themselves was always a great insult to men, as it implies that men have no functioning minds that at any time could overrule very aggressive impulses.

[MooseMom]

Iolaire, exactly.  It always struck me as really sexist, this forever perpetuated idea that men just can't control themselves and are driving wild by the sight of a woman's ankles.  But I sometimes wonder if this myth is conveniently perpetuated by men themselves, because then they get to abdicate any responsibility whatsoever.  It' all a "nudge nudge, wink wink" kind of thing and is yet another way to diminish women.id

I saw this last night and nearly fell out of my chair.  This is an interview with David Brock, a former right-wing activist, who admitted right then and there that he worked toward the annihilation of Anita Hill.  He outlines the mindset of the committee both then and now, and it is utterly fascinating and frightening.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/brock-blasey-ford-face-full-180302418.html

Since the FBI at the time of Kavanaugh's background check did not know of Dr. Ford's experience, they could reopen said background check, just as Dr. Ford has requested.  But first they would have to have the go-ahead from the White House, and that's not gonna happen.  So once again, there goes the transparency that we were promised by this administration.

There ARE witnesses, and there IS corroborating evidence, and the FBI has a special unit for investigating sexual misdeeds.  Why not let them do their work?  What is scaring Trump and Kavanaugh?  It doesn't have to take that long.  Let's see the evidence before the midterms so that the people can make more informed choices in November.

[Rerun]

It has gone from sexual misconduct to rape.  OMG  Pretty soon she will come up with a 40 year old son that is his.... 

[lulu836]

A little off topic but democracies usually onyl last for about 200 years.  Ours has started that long slide.

[Rerun]

Yea, the long slide to the left where good becomes evil and evil becomes good.

[lulu836]

                       True that!!

[Michael Murphy]

Under the current Presidunce we live in a land where lies replace truth.  He claims that the tape of him talking to Lester Holt admitting to why he fired Comey has been faked by nbc.  Problem is any editing changes the meta data buried in the video encoding.  Instead of having the video checked he does what all Russians do he relays on the big lie.

[Simon Dog]

Simon Dog, leave it to you to make all of this about guns.  That's not the issue here, as much as you'd like it to be.

It may not be the issue in the broad sense, but in the case of Feinstein it certainly is.   I do agree that for most of the opposing senators, the issue is abortion rights.    The high school escapade is either very serious or nothing -- and that depends on your view of his politics, not your view of right and wrong.   The condemnation would just shift to the other side of the aisle if the candidate were a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-affirmative action liberal.

Funny thing how judges who are supposed to simply follow the law come to diametrically opposite views as to what the law says.  If they just followed the law rather than their personally desired outcome, confirmation would be a simple process.

If this man is innocent, then he doesn't have anything to worry about, does he?

Innocent people are convicted, or forced to cop a plea, every day in the country.    There was a recent study that concluded that blacks are wrongfully convicted at several times the rates of whites.

Innocent people DO have a reason to be fearful if the system goes after them.

[MooseMom]

The "system" certainly isn't going after Kavanaugh, is it.  He's a powerful white man, so the "system" will treat him with due deference.  And it looks like we'll never get the chance to know if he really is "innocent".

"High school escapade"?  Really?  Is that you, Orrin Hatch?  It's deja vu all over again, isn't it, Senator? 

[Simon Dog]

I'm a big believer in due process, and that someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.   That concept seems to be irrelevant in this case, where accusation=guilt.

[MooseMom]

Never mind.  This is just all too exhausting. 

[lulu836]

The "system" certainly isn't going after Kavanaugh, is it.  He's a powerful white man

The race card?  Really?

[MooseMom]

As you've yourself said before, "If the shoe fits..."

But to be fair, I don't think race is an issue here.  Gender certainly is, though.

I thought Trump supporters wanted to kick out all of the "elites".  Kavanaugh is as elite as they come.  Privileged, well connected, prep school boy, entitled, etc.

[Rerun]

Well, who the heck can be a SC judge if you are not educated and become Elite.  Clarence Thomas went through this same crock of Horse Shit and he is Black and I guess not Privileged?

I am so tired of all this "Selective Moral Outrage"