Flake has announced that he will vote to confirm Kavanaugh!

Well that solves that, no need for investigation or due process for any crimes then - I mean how many people do you know who've been falsely accused of a crime before??

This isn't a criminal trial, this is a hearing. Proof beyond all question is the standard for sending a man to jail, it is not necessary for a job. If someone told you that the person your were interviewing for a nanny position had touched them inappropriately when they were a kid, would you necessitate a whole trial before deciding not to hire them? You'd probably err on the side of caution.

This is a job with a lot of consequences, if it is likely that he raped those women, if the odds are decent, then he shouldn't be hired. There are other qualified people out there.

Suspend all rational thought, because people with vaginas always tell the truth.

I wonder why Feinstein and the porn lawyer withheld all this information until the very last grandstand-able moment?

It's a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, covered in secret sauce.

NicoleK is absolutely correct in her assessment.

People appear to be forgetting that no one is at risk of being sent to prison here.

The beyond a reasonable doubt standard for depriving a person of their liberty only applies to criminal court cases.

Depriving someone of a position on the supreme court of the united states due to possible doubts in their overall character isn't even remotely the same thing.

I am perfectly content using a lesser standard of certainty in placing someone in high political office than what we use to lock people away for life.

At the end of the day we should all be interested in appointing people of such immense moral and ethical character that they are entirely beyond even the mere suspicion of significant criminal activities.

There should be many alternative conservative options to fill this post. The short list leading up to the nomination was not comprised of one person.

if it is likely that he raped those women

Ok, so you're saying a serial sexual predator of the likes we haven't seen before - remember, he didn't kill all these women - suddenly becomes bored with such life and becomes a straight arrow beyond reproach?

Feel free to square that circle.

Occam's razor suggests that this is about abortion, and that the feminists, the Democrats and the Media (BIRM) are willing to do anything to stop the nominee.

There are other qualified people out there.

Why would they agree to it? to be doxxed, to have the most vile threats levelled not only against them, but their families? would you subject yourself to that?

Relevant:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/bill%20clinton%20-%20kavanaugh.jpg

I R A Darth Aggie Says:

"Ok, so you're saying a serial sexual predator of the likes we haven't seen before"

What are you talking about Aggie???

We literally just saw the conviction sentence this week of Bill Cosby who had 50+ separate accusers.

Now you claim that Kavanaugh is being made out to be a serial sexual predator beyond the realm of any human being who has come before him?

That assessment doesn't match reality.

"Why would they agree to it? to be doxxed, to have the most vile threats levelled not only against them, but their families? would you subject yourself to that?"

It didn't happen to Gorsuch... if this is all just a weaponized political tactic why wait for this nominee?

No one knew Kennedy was going to step down until a few months ago.

The Democrats knew there was an open seat available for over a year before the Gorsuch appointment.

Occam's razor suggests that if this is only about political tricks they would have done this for that open seat. The fact that they didn't suggests that it isn't just a simple political calculation.

I joked the other day that if this circus continues, we'll end up with Judge Judy on the Supreme Court; with a link to an article that showed way too many people already believe she's on it.

I think too many people want the Supreme Court to be Judge Judy - folksy witticisms and parent-like dispute resolution regardless of the laws involved. The Supreme Court's role is adjudicate cases in accordance with the law.

As John Roberts said in one of the Obamacare disputes, it's not the Supreme Court's job to rescue us from bad laws. But that seems to be what some people want our courts to do, rescue them from laws they don't like.

Kavanaugh, I think, understands the true role of the Court.

The beyond a reasonable doubt standard for depriving a person of their liberty only applies to criminal court cases. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 9:01 AM

The standard of innocent until proven guilty stands, however. Check the libel/slander laws. I can't publicly claim you embezzled funds from a charity without having some proof. Wild accusations are actionable.

Our default position, as a society, is that accusations are just that, unless proven.

I can publicly call you a coward (as Patrick once did to me), but without a video of you running over children to escape a kitchen fire, it's just bluster.

There are other qualified people out there. ~ NicoleK at September 28, 2018 8:29 AM

And every one of them will face the same circus of wild and unsubstantiated accusations that Kavanaugh has.

The Democrats are determined that they will dictate the make-up of the Supreme Court, despite not winning the presidency.

Under Obama, the Republicans were excoriated with the argument that an 8-justice Supreme Court was bad for the country; that Merrick Garland needed to be approved for the good of the country. And now we're facing an 8-justice Supreme Court and that count is no longer important.

..The beyond a reasonable doubt standard ..

Wrong analogy. This is the 'without consideration of doubt' standard by which any person is deemed guilty of a sex crime and punished solely upon the accusation of a white woman.

Do you know how many black men lost their lives because people were told to 'believe all white women'?

Conan Says:

"The standard of innocent until proven guilty stands, however. Check the libel/slander laws. I can't publicly claim you embezzled funds from a charity without having some proof. Wild accusations are actionable."

This is a job interview Conan.

That isn't necessarily about innocence or guilt from the perspective of the employer.

If you were considering hiring someone to be your accountant and someone approaches you to inform you of how that individual completely messed up their tax returns... you would be justified to just look for someone else.

Now if those accusations are completely without merit the impacted accountant has every right to sue the informant in civil court... but they don't get to demand the job from you.

Conan Says:

"And now we're facing an 8-justice Supreme Court and that count is no longer important."

You are completely misrepresenting history. You are too intelligent to be doing this by accident.

The Democracts were critical of the Republicans for denying a hearing to a legitimate candidate for 14 months.

That isn't the same thing as wanting to appoint the right person for the job. You know these things are fundamentally different and yet here you are arguing as if it is one and the same.

Truth is, Kavanaugh wouldn't be dismissed even if this were a 'job interview'.

The account by Dr. Ford is one unsubstantiated claim, made by an adversarial party, in a mountain of substantiating investigations and evidence supporting Kavanaugh.

You would have to ignore all other evidence to privilege this claim in order to dismiss him.

The arguments being made by Artemis and Nicole only work if Ford's accusation was the only thing you knew about a candidate.

Mary,

The argument put forth by myself and Nicole stands in the sense that people are treating this like it is a criminal court proceeding.

It isn't.

It is a job interview plain and simple.

If the folks doing the hiring are moved by Dr. Ford's testimony and decide to deny the appointment to Kavanaugh nothing has happened to call for a "mistrial"... or to get a new hearing.

They can decide they don't care about Dr. Fords testimony as well.

The point is that this isn't about beyond a reasonable doubt or innocent until proven guilty. No one has an entitlement to be a justice on the SCOTUS... you either get voted in or you don't.

> It is a job interview plain and simple.

Not at all - it is about the direction of Western culture, and whether we will allow feminism to continue on its crazy train.

For instance, see -

"If Kavanaugh is confirmed, every woman I know is going to combust. We are going to burn the world."

https://twitter.com/lyzl/status/1045447753206255616

Snoopy,

The SCOTUS seat is supposed to be filled by a non-partisan dispassionate representative whose job is to be an impartial umpire.

Are you suggesting that Kavanaugh might attempt to be an activist judge with a political agenda?

What are you talking about Aggie???

We literally just saw the conviction sentence this week of Bill Cosby who had 50+ separate accusers.

I dunno, maybe this bit? suddenly becomes bored with such life and becomes a straight arrow beyond reproach?

Bill Cosby never stopped what he was doing. So, if you are of the opinion that Ford's accusation has merit, and he is some sort of serial rapist, where are the accusations of impropriety and the sealed out of court settlements from, oh, 30 years ago? 20? 15?

You keep saying it is a job interview. Fine. Is he qualified for Supremes? has anyone filed a criminal complaint against him? does he have dozens of character witnesses who have said categorically he's an upright citizen?

So, place all that on the scale, and his unequivocal denials. I don't see how one can say "no", except he doesn't meet your political tests.

> Are you suggesting that Kavanaugh might attempt to
> be an activist judge with a political agenda?

I'm not sure where you're getting that from?!

I'm simply saying do we as a society say no to this foolishness or do we continue riding into the abyss.

The comment would apply to what happened regardless of how Kavanaugh would act as a judge and regardless of who this kind of thing happened to.

"The SCOTUS seat is supposed to be filled by a non-partisan dispassionate representative whose job is to be an impartial umpire.

Yeah, like RBG and Wise Latina.

9 AM - Flake issues statement: "I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”

9:30 AM - Flake accosted in an elevator by rabid screaming protester.This is broadcast live on CNN (who had cameras at the ready)

1 PM - Flake huddles with Dems

1:45 - Flake Flakes

Thy name is Flake.

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1045738485045506050

If this were a work of fiction, I think the editor would would require Flake's name to be changed - "you can't have the flake named Flake - it's too obvious!"

Prediction - for the midterm elections, we're going to see a larger than ever divergence between how men and women vote.

This is not just about Kavanaugh. This is part of a larger feminist attack designed to socially and politically castrate every American man. To paraphrase: "Once you HAVE their balls, their hearts and minds will follow."

As women huff and puff with OUTRAGE, and demand that men "shut up' while all women are believed (because sacred vagina), they fail to see how damaging this will be to women in the long run, much less how damaging it will be to a civil society. Way NOT to earn respect, girls.

Democrats want women to view themselves as men's victims, and as men's social and political adversaries -- but that will be a disaster when it finally unfolds, i.e., when men wake up to the fact that they have been demonized and have become second-class citizens, and that most women are perfectly happy with that arrangement.

If the past is any indicator, we dudes are not very nice when we're pissed off. So, keep kicking that dog, ladies, keep kicking that dog -- and now aim for the balls. That cowed puppy will never, ever bite you, right?

I'd like to commission a baroque painting.

https://twitter.com/danbobkoff/status/1045748469871390720

The Democracts were critical of the Republicans for denying a hearing to a legitimate candidate for 14 months. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 9:36 AM

It wasn't 14 months. Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016 and his nomination expired on January 3, 2017. That's 9.5 months. Now, if we count it from nomination to the swearing in of Gorsuch, we get 14 months. Bit disingenuous, that claim of 14 months.

By claiming 14 months, the Democrats are trying to get around that "not in a presidential election year" standard by claiming over a year's delay. Don't forget that the Democrats were the ones who came up with the "not in a presidential election year" standard for SCOTUS nominations.

"As a result, it is my view that ... President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed." ~ Senator Jospeh Biden (D-Delaware) on June 25, 1992.

To refresh your memory, in 1992, William Jefferson Clinton defeated George Herbert Walker Bush in the election for the presidency, creating the party changeover that Biden was hoping for and giving the Democrats the privilege of nominating SCOTUS justices.

That isn't necessarily about innocence or guilt from the perspective of the employer. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 9:32 AM

So, you're okay with wild and random accusations scuttling the hiring of a qualified candidate? You're okay with office politics giving your company it's less-qualified second or third choice for an accountant? You're okay with people in other departments making wild and unsubstantiated accusations to scuttle a perfectly good candidate in order to put their own choice of a candidate in the job instead?

Hope it never happens to you, Artie.

This wasn't about getting the right candidate, it was about getting the one the minority party wants. Or blocking the one they don't want. If it were about getting the right candidate, Feinsein would have revealed thee existence of Ford's accusation in July, when she received it, or had the FBI investigate it when the investigation was still active, or asked Kavanaugh about it when she interviewed him in August. She did none of those things.

This is all about the party that lost the presidential election getting to exercise all the privileges of having won it.

These accusations are character assassination, plain and simple, and they put Kavanaugh in a no-win situation. He's been slandered and smeared with little recourse for remedy. With the vague details she gave, he can't prove his innocence but his opponents can continue to imply his guilt without evidence.

Every single witness Ford named has rebutted her story. However, his opponents keep repeating that there's truth there, simply in the accusation.

There is still hope beating in the hearts of his opponents that yet a seventh FBI background investigation might turn up something incriminating, so, they continue to demand an FBI investigation and use his reluctance to undergo yet another background check as prima facie evidence of his guilt.

The worst part about the Kavanaugh hearings is that, as taxpayers, this is our circus and these are our monkeys.

And you're mostly wrong, Artie. The benefit of the doubt falling on the accused (the presumption of innocence) stands in job interviews, court trials, newspaper stories, etc. Our slander/libel laws require you to back up an accusation; that some believe your accusation doesn't matter without some sort of proof or demonstrably legitimate reason for making it.

While the evidentiary standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" may not apply here, some sort of evidence is still required before we condemn someone to ignominy. At least it should be.

Artemis says: "At the end of the day we should all be interested in appointing people of such immense moral and ethical character that they are entirely beyond even the mere suspicion of significant criminal activities." but there are no such people when there are so many incentives (including merely "look at me") to lie. The Left is continuously accusing Repubs of being racist and worse. That is pretty serious too, so i guess they should all resign. Also remember that apparently Kavanaugh's mother was the judge who handled the foreclosure of Ford's parent's house. And, her therapist notes do not actually give his name in 2012. And 36 year old memories that are admitted to be shaky (which year? which house? who was there?).
Men are never falsely accused? I think the most common false accusations are by wives against husbands --esp in divorce proceedings. But i know of cases where clearly documented major marital facts were denied by the wife, and/or imaginary "abuse" alleged. Plenty of such cases.
finally, we are looking for a judge, not a saint. There is no evidence for the crime claimed and no prosecutor could move forward (well except for Mike Nifong but he is disbarred).

I R A Darth Aggie Says:

"I dunno, maybe this bit? suddenly becomes bored with such life and becomes a straight arrow beyond reproach?
Bill Cosby never stopped what he was doing."

Don't you see why what you are saying here in combination seems quite odd?

There is no way you can demonstrate that he became a "straight arrow beyond reproach".

Bill Cosby for example was seen as a pillar of the community until everything came crashing in on him... everyone thought he was beyond reproach too... until he wasn't.

Neither you nor I know Kavanaugh well enough to hold him in such high esteem.

He isn't beyond reproach to me... in fact he is well within reproach.

You are literally saying that this guy became a perfect individual such that no criticism can possibly be made of his character... that is a ridiculous position to hold about someone you have no personal experience with.

Snoopy Says:

"I'm simply saying do we as a society say no to this foolishness or do we continue riding into the abyss."

And I am simply saying is that unless there is something specific and unique about Kavanaugh that makes him especially suited to drive "the direction of Western culture" and stopping feminism from continuing "on its crazy train.", then you should be perfectly satisfied with a replacement conservative nominee that doesn't have this black cloud hanging over their head.

The only reason to pitch a fit specifically over one nominee for this stated purpose is if you are convinced that he will be an activist judge for this cause. Outside of that, other options on the short list should satisfy you.

Conan Says:

"It wasn't 14 months. Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016 and his nomination expired on January 3, 2017. That's 9.5 months. Now, if we count it from nomination to the swearing in of Gorsuch, we get 14 months. Bit disingenuous, that claim of 14 months."

It isn't disingenuous because 14 months is in fact the amount of time that transpired where the court was only at 8 members. These 14 months elapsed as a direct result of the Republican members of congress refusing to hold a hearing for a qualified nominee.

Once again, you are intelligent enough to understand that the proper rebuttal to your argument that all of a sudden the Democrats do not care about an 8 person court is to highlight that what the Democrats were actually objecting to was completely and utter inaction on the part of Rebublicans, which lead directly to a vacancy on the court for 14 months... so now you are twisting to change course from your original argument.

You know as well as I do that there is a fundamental difference between objecting to completely indifference to the status of the court... and objecting to a specific nominee while actively working through the process.

Those are 2 completely different things.

The Democrats were objecting to the Republicans refusing to do their job. In this case the Democrats are holding the hearings and objecting to the nominee on the merits of the evidence laid out before them.

"So, you're okay with wild and random accusations scuttling the hiring of a qualified candidate?"

I didn't say I was okay with it Conan. I said that there are legal measures to take as a remedy.

Let's have a very honest discussion for a moment, shall we?

If you were looking to hire a service to come and clean your home... and then out of the blue you had 3 separate people stop by your home to warn you about that particular service because they claim to have used them and say that they found things missing from their house... would you be violating the civil rights of the cleaning employees by seeking to hire someone else?

Do you need those 3 folks to provide documented video evidence in order for you to consider hiring a different company for the job?

Now if those 3 people have no evidence and are smearing that company, the company has every right to sue them... but you are under no obligation to hire that service.

No law exists compelling you to hire them if the 3 separate reports are sufficient to make you uncomfortable.

You wouldn't have done anything illegal in making the decision to just go with someone else.

If all three of those people worked for the same competing cleaning company I would certainly be suspicious of their claims. Especially if dozens of other people say that company does a great job.

You act like there are no incentives for these people to lie. But there are fairly clear incentives.

As for the 'It's just a job so we don't need proof' argument. Lets be honest. This is politics. They can approve or deny for any reason whatsoever. Don't like his haircut. His tie is the wrong color. Doesn't matter how silly the reason. They still get to vote as they wish. In this case it is a clear party line vote. Ford didn't change any of that.

"It is a job interview plain and simple."

Now THAT is bullshit!

It isn't just ANY job interview - it is a hearing to determine if this guy should be a judge. Since there isn't anything that the Democrats can legitimately use as an excuse for him to not be judge they have to go all "Clarence Thomas" on him and do another high-tech lynching.

That is about all the Democrats can do - trash folks so badly that no one in their right mind would consider putting themselves or their families through such hell to serve our country.

And sadly it will, in the long run, work because the Republicans don't pull this shit as badly as the Democrats do.

Ben,

And it would be fine for you to be suspicious of those claims.

The point is that there is no law or legal principle compelling you to hire the smeared company.

If you decide that it is too dicey for you, no one can sue you or demand that you must hire the company in question.

"This is politics. They can approve or deny for any reason whatsoever."

This is correct... which is why it doesn't make any sense to apply innocent until proven guilty.

The senators are not compelled by law to vote in accordance with a legal principle.

Turning this into an issue of civil rights violations is where I am objecting here.

If he fails to get nominated on the basis of this testimony, he can't go into a court of law demanding a seat on the SCOTUS because he was smeared. It doesn't work that way.

If on the other hand you are in a criminal trial and you can prove that you were denied the presumption of innocence, you would have legal recourse to overturn or nullify the trial.

Charles Says:

"It isn't just ANY job interview - it is a hearing to determine if this guy should be a judge. Since there isn't anything that the Democrats can legitimately use as an excuse for him to not be judge they have to go all "Clarence Thomas" on him and do another high-tech lynching."

While I am mindful of the need for respect in this situation, in my view, given the current testimony, the vacant seat on the SCOTUS will best be served by our gathering the full facts regarding the actions of this nominee so that Congress can decide whether the interests of the court would best be served by having a new recommendation from the President.

The Democrats were objecting to the Republicans refusing to do their job. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 5:59 PM

The Democrats were objecting to the fact that the Republicans were holding to the standard the Democrats themselves had established: not nominating a SCOTUS justice during a year in which a presidential election is being held.

Joe Biden himself, vice president when Obama nominated Garland, was the one in 1992 admonishing the Republicans to not appoint a justice in a presidential election year. There's a link to a video of his speech on the subject in my earlier post. Read the entire transcript, not just my quote. In it, Biden in 1992 sounds an awful lot like McConnell in 2016. Biden was then Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and was forewarning Bush that any appointment to the Supreme Court would be stalled in committee until after the election, when he hoped his party's candidate would be elected - much like McConnell was telling Obama.

Biden also held up several lower court appointments - including that of John Roberts to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - in the expectation that Clinton would win and be able to appoint more liberal judges to those vacancies.

Strom Thurmond pulled a similar stunt in 1980 - with no admonishment about holding up SCOTUS nominees - to hold open lower court vacancies for Ronald Reagan.

It's a political game as old as politics, and to act like it's a new and nefarious trick by one's political opponents is pretty cynical and nothing to be proud of.

Personally, I think we're better off with Gorsuch. His rulings were more often on the side of limiting government power, whereas Garland's were more often on the side of expanding or affirming government power.

The point is that there is no law or legal principle compelling you to hire the smeared company. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 7:04 PM

Except in this case, you've already hired it. It's been investigated 6 times already and worked for you for 12 years, all with no hint of scandal. You just have to get the HR people to approve the hire - the same HR people cooking up fantastic accusations against it in the hopes of getting their own company the job.

"If you were looking to hire a service to come and clean your home... and then out of the blue you had 3 separate people stop by your home to warn you "

But you leave out the best part, one claims it happened 35ish years ago, er maybe more in a house that they don't really remember, the owners and neighbors of that house says she's lying.

The second says she can't remember If she even had a house or if they were there to clean it or demolish the place, She may have been drunk that year. But they definitely thought about stealing.

And the third. Claims the cleaning crew were mastermind thieves robbing millions from hundreds of your neighbors so well even decades later, none even know they were robbed.
And all 3 are wearing the uniforms from a rival cleaning company. Who want's the French foreign legion to investigate the crime, who cares if they don't investigate crimes.

> The only reason to pitch a fit specifically over
> one nominee for this stated purpose is if you are
> convinced that he will be an activist judge for
> this cause. Outside of that, other options on the
> short list should satisfy you.

Again, not at all. He certainly was not my first choice. As I said before, I'd be saying the same thing regardless of who was nominated.

> other options on the short list

You know that the Democrats will play the same game to stop anyone else Trump nominates.

Conan,

Thank you for acknowledging that Strom Thurmond set a precedent for this nonsense at an earlier time than Biden.

"It's a political game as old as politics, and to act like it's a new and nefarious trick by one's political opponents is pretty cynical and nothing to be proud of."

Of course there are political games involved... and yet you are the one who wanted to equate the current situation to those political stunts.

"Except in this case, you've already hired it. It's been investigated 6 times already and worked for you for 12 years, all with no hint of scandal. You just have to get the HR people to approve the hire - the same HR people cooking up fantastic accusations against it in the hopes of getting their own company the job."

Alright Conan, you have convinced me this is a promotional interview and not a job interview.

The rest of the argument still applies.

People are not entitled to promotions as a matter of civil rights.

...it is a hearing to determine if this guy should be a judge. ~ charles at September 28, 2018 6:58 PM

Actually, it's not.

He's already a judge. This is a hearing to determine if he should be a Supreme Court Justice.

He's been a federal judge for 12 years - with nary a hint of scandal in all that time. He's been investigated six times - each time he was appointed to a higher court. Again with nary a hint of scandal.

So, now card-carrying Democrats are popping up like Whack-a-Moles and making the most fantastic accusations against him, accusations so outrageous there's little conceivable way they could have stayed hidden for 12 years and six FBI investigations, much less the roughly 4-year period in which they were alleged to have occurred.

I mean, c'mon, weekly high school gang rape parties? And not one of the girls ever reported it or went home disheveled and told her parents or withdrew afterward in such a way that caused her parents concern.

People are not entitled to promotions as a matter of civil rights. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 7:44 PM

But they are entitled to a presumption of innocence - as a matter of civil rights.

Snoopy Says:

"You know that the Democrats will play the same game to stop anyone else Trump nominates."

I don't know that though... and neither do you.

None of this happened with Gorsuch earlier this year and the exact same folks were involved on the judiciary committee.

There is no reason to believe that one point makes a trend.

If it turned out to be a trend I assure you that the whole thing would turn my stomach, because that is playing too dirty even for politics in my opinion.

As it stands we only have this one event, which doesn't establish a pattern of behavior.

Conan Says:

"But they are entitled to a presumption of innocence - as a matter of civil rights."

I hate to break it to you at this stage in the game Conan... but sometimes life isn't fair.

It is entirely possible for you to be qualified and up for a promotion and if management believes you have been behaving in an uncivil manner toward your coworkers... even if they cannot prove it... that can look you over time and time again for that promotion and there is very little you can do about it short of leaving the company.

Right or wrong, perception matters.

I hate to break it to you at this stage in the game Conan... but sometimes life isn't fair. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 7:51 PM

Really? Wow. Thanks for telling me that. I really needed to hear it. /sarcasm

Yes, some behaviors do remain hidden, even bad ones. However, the outlandish claims against Kavanaugh seem unlikely crimes to have remained below the radar for so long and through six federal investigations. Not to mention, there's no hint of scandal in his 12-year record as a federal judge. Sexual perverts do not typically take a 12-year hiatus.

According to these claims, he's one caped leotard away from being a comic book super villain.

Thank you for acknowledging that Strom Thurmond set a precedent for this nonsense at an earlier time than Biden. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 7:44 PM

Thurmond really didn't set the precedent. More likely, he followed it. Whoever set it is probably lost in the mists of time.

Keep in mind that Thurmond did not issue a warning about SCOTUS appointments. Biden expanded the practice to SCOTUS appointments. If he hadn't McConnell probably would have..

Conan Says:

"However, the outlandish claims against Kavanaugh seem unlikely crimes to have remained below the radar for so long and through six federal investigations. Not to mention, there's no hint of scandal in his 12-year record as a federal judge. Sexual perverts do not typically take a 12-year hiatus."

What evidence do you have to suggest that sexual violence is either a behavior that is repeated over and over during the course of an entire life... or has never occurred from birth until death?

How do you know that sexual perverts/criminals do not typically take a 12-year hiatus?

Maybe I am missing something here, but not every type of criminal is a serial perpetrator.

Are all murderers serial killers for example?

I do not believe your claim here has any support.

Furthermore, an investigation does not typically find something it isn't looking for. Typical FBI investinations for people entering government will include general background and credit checks looking at documented criminal history and outstanding debts that could be used to compromise the individual in a position of authority.

What they don't typically do is canvass your entire hometown looking for evidence of unreported sexual misconduct.

There is no reason to believe those previous investigations would have turned something like this up.

How many times for example has the FBI come knocking at your door asking about some peripheral acquaintance from 20 years prior to see if they innappropriately groped you?

"According to these claims, he's one caped leotard away from being a comic book super villain."

And according to his supporters he is a saint who walks the earth.

Neither picture captures the life of a human being.

“Right or wrong, perception matters.”

You’ve taken forever to show this as Conan dismantles you, without even a nod to the plain fact that you can’t imagine being in this circus, yourself: the complete spectator with a bedazzled smartphone, pronouncing “justice”.
STILL the lowest content/syllable online.

"The senators are not compelled by law to vote in accordance with a legal principle."

Of course there isn't. And Democrats are the only ones claiming that anyone thinks there is. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just a legal requirement. It is also a moral one. There are zero legal requirements here. Either to confirm or not. But there are always moral requirements.

It isn't disingenuous because 14 months is in fact the amount of time that transpired where the court was only at 8 members. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 5:59 PM

Let's see about that. A SCOTUS term runs from the first Monday in October to late June or early July. So, the time that the Court being at only eight justices was a factor is still not 14 months.

Garland was nominated on March 16. Let's give him a month for his background check, committee hearing, and a floor vote. Assuming everything goes swimmingly, that puts him on the Court in mid-April or early May and leaves him roughly two months in that term. Picking up the next term in October gives us roughly the 9.5 months I originally posted. I'm gonna stick with that figure.

This all assumes Garland passes his background check and no 35 years stale allegations of routine gang-rape parties pop up to derail his nomination.

Seriously, why do all scandals the Left gins up involve deviant sex?

It didn't happen to Gorsuch... if this is all just a weaponized political tactic why wait for this nominee? ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 9:18 AM

Gorsuch represented status quo. He was replacing a constructionist justice, Antonin Scalia. Kavanaugh, however, is replacing a swing vote justice, Anthony Kennedy, solidly locking up a 6-3 conservative majority for the Court.

Besides, impeachment was still on the table then. The Russian collusion narrative was showing signs of life. Dems were pretty confident that Trump would not last long - plenty of NeverTrumpers in the Senate meant once impeached, he had no guarantee of survival. And there was probably a plan to take care of Pence. Now, however, the collusion narrative is dying on the vine, the NeverTrumpers are retiring, the economy is doing well, and Trump looks like a survivor.

For their own benefit, the Democrats probably should have pulled this stunt with Gorsuch, but they never imagined Kennedy would step down in the middle of Trump's presidency; that they'd lose their swing vote on Roe v. Wade.

And, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ill health, the Democrats are terrified that Trump will get yet another nomination for a 7-2 Court. They have to derail this one, by any means necessary - or discredit each nominee so the Court itself is discredited.

Typical FBI investinations for people entering government will include general background and credit checks looking at documented criminal history and outstanding debts that could be used to compromise the individual in a position of authority. What they don't typically do is canvass your entire hometown looking for evidence of unreported sexual misconduct. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 8:43 PM

Been through a lot of FBI investigations have you? I've been through one - for a friend, not as the subject. I've been named as a potential character witness in two, but was only called in one.

The FBI questions acquaintances, colleagues, neighbors, and family; and not all of them. While they don't grill you with rolled up phone books and harsh lights, they do delve pretty deeply.

So, you're telling me none of his victims, acquaintances, neighbors, classmates, etc. ever ratted him out for his attempted rape or gang rape parties, until now in the most public manner possible?

You do understand that this latest investigation will focus on the three witnesses who, under penalty of perjury, have already denied Dr. Ford's claims, don't you? It may delve a little deeper than that, but the likelihood of flipping an existing witness or uncovering a new witness in a week is low.

The SCOTUS seat is supposed to be filled by a non-partisan dispassionate representative whose job is to be an impartial umpire. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 11:00 AM

Even if non-partisan, each justice sitting on the bench has a judicial philosophy about the Constitution - living document or original constructionist - and the role of the court system.

Should life experience play a role in decision-making or should cases be decided strictly on the points of law?

Is it the Court's job to enforce fairness, or adjudicate the law?

Can the Constitution be interpreted through a modern lens, or is it a set-in-stone framework for building a representative government?

Activist justices tend to favor the living document argument. Democrats tend to favor activist justices.

I'd be interested in how many of those who think K is sufficiently tainted by an unsupported allegation that he shouldn't be appointed--as opposed to those who think that, as a Trump pick, any tactic is acceptable. My guess is that the first category in this thread contains zero.
If K were a dem, and his record were worse, he'd be confirmed and become the lion of the SCOTUS as Teddy Kennedy was the lion of the Senate after he killed Mary Jo Kopechne.
Gerry Studds was caught messing with an underage congressional page and was re elected six times. His constituents didn't see the problem.
So spare me the fake concern.
Nobody's buying it
CFB was in CA long enough to pick up a permanent vocal fry, or she had a bad cold, or she was faking emotion. She lied about her experience with the lie detector. She's a psychologist. They are introduced to the subject, theory and practice, as an early undergrad in the subject. She was not unfamiliar nor was there a reason to be stressed. Indeed, if she'd been stressed, the results would have been useless. She lied about not being able to fly. And being assaulted, the dems would have us believe, causes women to name as witnesses only those who will refute their allegation.
Sheesh. Try not to be so obvious next time.

Radwaste,

What I am seeing here are a bunch of people who live in an ideal little world where miraculously truth and justice always prevail.

The point is that in a he said/she said scenario involving appointment to high public office, the perception of moral impropriety is incredibly important.

This entire fantasy you are trying to concoct about how innocent until proven guilty matters here is the philosophy of a child.

Let me spell it out for you in plain terms because this seems to be beyond you at the moment... if you are on a jury... and one of the lawyers runs into you on the street and engages you in a friendly conversation about the weather, don't for one second think that this wouldn't be cause for a mistrial.

The reason for this is that in such instances the mere appearance of impropriety is what counts... no one presumes the conversation was innocent unless proven otherwise.

That is the standard being applied here, the problem is the perception.

It would be great if perception didn't matter in this world, but that is a fantasy land of rainbows and unicorns.

In the real world the public perception of your character matters when being considered for high public office.

Conan,

I am not going to bother trying to parse out your most recent post at the moment because we are starting to veer away from the main argument here.

Let me plainly ask you if you are familiar with how the appearance of impropriety works in law?

You are hitching your wagon to this whole innocent until proven guilty thing as if it is the standard that applies to all situations and all scenarios.

The reality is that this is simply not the case.

If for example you owned a business and as a standard practice you continually moved funds back and forth between your personal and business accounts. Now let's say for sake of argument that you kept fastidious records to ensure that in the end you tracked to the penny which funds were actually personal and which were actually for the business... you might argue that you are innocent of any potential wrong doing... you were keeping careful records and you assure everyone that you had no nefarious intent by engaging in this practice.

None of that would protect you from allegations of the appearance of impropriety in shuffling your funds in such a way and as a matter of law you would be subject to a piercing of the corporate veil should you be taken to court.

It wouldn't matter if you never actually improperly absconded with funds from the company to purchase a new deck for your home for example... the mere appearance of impropriety would be enough to land you in trouble.

That is what we are talking about here.

As it stands we have a nominee who is in some pretty hot water and depending upon the perception of the senators they will either view him as morally deficient in his character... or they will not.

As it stands this individual has lied under oath that he drank alcohol to excess legally... when in fact he was under age at the time.

He is trying to play a boy scout here when it is plainly clear he had a fairly sorded youth... which would be fine if he owned up to the achowledged indiscretions... but he isn't even doing that.

That alone might be enough to dissuade from senators from trusting his judgment.

Okay, for anyone actually paying attention to the facts, and not the twisted fantasy scenarios being constructed to justify the baseless allegations made against Kavanaugh, he is CURRENTLY a federal appellate court judge. He has adjudicated at least 300 cases and therefore has a deep professional background on which his fitness for the SC can be judged. We know he can do the job bc he HAS BEEN doing the job and doing the job well for many years. He has received every professional accreditation possible. An eleventh hour allegation that comes out of nowhere with NO evidence is NOT ENOUGH to negate his whole professional life.

If you have serious objections as to how he will conduct himself...please feel free to refer us to any and all of his past decisions you have a problem with and how they relate to this allegation. Please be sure to include source citations to the cases and footnotes to support your claims. Otherwise, shut up. You are just trying ruining another person’s life bc he doesn’t happen to agree with you. This has been the most disgusting thing I have ever witnessed and attempts to justify it are even worse.

Let me plainly ask you if you are familiar with how the appearance of impropriety works in law? ~ Artemis at September 29, 2018 10:53 AM

Yes, Artie, I am well aware with how the appearance of impropriety works. I'm bound by commission rules and license law to avoid it. That's not the case here.

These are 11th hour outlandish and baseless accusations offered with absolutely no proof; accusations that were almost immediately refuted by the corroborating witnesses - under penalty of perjury.

The accuser states this was the most traumatic experience of her life, but when asked for details, can give none, except the laughter that is "indelibly seared onto [her] hippocampus."

The fact that two more accusers came forward, each with an even more outlandish and cartoonish story is not the proverbial smoke indicating fire. This is a wave of mass hysteria the likes of which we have not seen since Salem of 1692.

This is not an "appearance of impropriety" on Kavanaugh's part, but an orchestrated smear campaign against a man who has faithfully and diligently served as a federal judge for the past 12 years; without even a hint of impropriety, much less an appearance, in those 12 years.

That you keep indicating skepticism is warranted for his denials, but not for the accuser's story exposes your political bias. And makes me wonder about your commitment to truth. You laud non-partisanship, but you celebrate and rationalize the partisan lynching party.

Twelve years, Artie. Twelve years he's been a federal judge, and a good one. And the likes of you just casually toss that away to score political points. Oh, you dress up your crime with pretty words like "appearance of impropriety" or rationalize it with saccharine concern for the accuser and, by proxy, all women. Because you won't (or can't) face what it really is, a partisan lynch mob.

The ends, Artie, most definitely do not justify the means. This circus will leave our body politic wounded, perhaps mortally. And anyone supporting it is culpable for the assault - and the results.

Conan Says:

"Yes, Artie, I am well aware with how the appearance of impropriety works. I'm bound by commission rules and license law to avoid it. That's not the case here."

Right... so please stop asserting that the innocent unless proven guilty standard is some universal moral principle that must be applied in all scenarios.

It is one standard amongst many that gets applied on a case by case basis.

That you might be innocent of actual wrong doing would not protect your job if there was an appearance of impropriety on your part that negatively reflected on your company.

You know this.

"These are 11th hour outlandish and baseless accusations offered with absolutely no proof; accusations that were almost immediately refuted by the corroborating witnesses - under penalty of perjury."

I understand your perspective on this Conan.

The point is that there are other problems here at this point... some of which Kavanaugh brought upon himself.

During his own sworn testimony he made statements that were factually false... and which it strains credibility to believe he didn't know they were false given his occupation and generally accepted level of expertise and intelligence. He made these statements under penalty of perjury as well.

In a dubious effort to maintain a false narrative about his youthful reputation as essentially a hard working studious choir boy... he declared under oath that in 1982 he drank to excess... but that it was legal because the drinking age was 18. Here is the direct quote:

"“I liked beer. I still like beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink... Sometimes probably had too many beers.”"

The problem for him is that the drinking age was actually 21 for him because he never made the cut off.

He wasn't legal to drink... he knows he wasn't legal to drink... and that would be fine if he acknowledged this as a youthful indiscretion.

The problem is that he lied about that under oath just this week.

Furthermore... Kavanaugh himself finds lying under oath to be a disqualifying behavior for holding high public office.

That is the entire rationale with which he personally argued that President Clinton needed to be removed from office.

The problem for him right now is that based upon his own personal standard for holding high public office he no longer makes the cut.

Often times claims of hypocrisy are thrown around when it comes to political parties and the problem always is that the members of those parties change... often the person making the claim 20 years ago isn't the same as the person making the claim today... so the hypocrisy is in some sense manufactured.

That isn't the case here... his own personal standards... the ones he personally wanted to hold others to has been violated under very similar circumstances (i.e., during questioning about alleged sexual misconduct).

None of that is about a smear campaign... that is about his own arrogance and refusal to just admit that as a youth he broke the law and drank under age.

He did that to himself Conan.

I am simply holding Kavanaugh to the Kavanaugh standard.

Conan Says:

"You laud non-partisanship, but you celebrate and rationalize the partisan lynching party."

You have it all wrong Conan.

I am committed to non-partisanship... I do not celebrate and rationalize partisan lynching.

I am simply pointing out that Kavanaugh was personally a very involved part of a similar lynch mob 20 years ago... and now he is crying foul when subjected to the same treatment he gave to others (arguably what he has been exposed to has been a less aggressive line of questioning than he personally wanted to use).

I am simply pointing out that the Kavanaugh of 20 years ago would be levying the same criticisms of the Kavanaugh of today as I am.

This is about holding people to the same standards that they hold others to... this isn't about partisanship.

Kavanaugh isn't just some innocent choir boy who got snared in a web... the guy literally did what he previously asserted was disqualifying to hold high public office.

He should have just been honest and let his reputation be soiled... as he expected of others in a similar situation.

Instead he chose to lie under oath during a confirmation hearing.

This isn't about partisanship for me. I simply have a live by the sword die by the sword outlook.

I don't have loads of sympathy for example for a poker player who cheats when they later complain that the game they were just in was unfair because the dealer was stacking the deck.

This isn't just some random guy who is being accosted by a lynch mob as you put it... this guy is a well known lyncher.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/why-the-brett-kavanaugh-smear.php

I think this pretty much sums up my thinking on the subject,

Kavanaugh is not being subjected to the "same treatment." As much as his fan boys don't want to admit it, William Jefferson Clinton committed the crime he was accused of committing - perjury. He lied to a grand jury. He may not have been the only president to commit a crime while in office, but he was caught. It was a stupid lie, easily proven false; as are the accusations against Kavanaugh.

Being lied about is not the same as having your lies exposed.

Don't forget that Clinton was disbarred by the states of New York and Arkansas. Not to mention that he was barred from arguing before the Supreme Court for life. All that was for the actual crime of committing perjury, not a political lynch mob.

Personally, I thought Royce Lambert erred when he let Jones' lawsuit go forward so many years after the statute of limitations had expired. However, once the suit was allowed to go forward, Clinton was obligated to tell the truth, and he did not.

Kavanaugh's contributing an opinion to a report was not "joining a lynch mob." It was him doing his job as associate counsel to a special prosecutor.

Artie, made up accusations as revenge for legitimate political actions is destructive and could very well inflict a mortal wound to our body politic.

Ted Kennedy did that with Robert Bork, who dared to disagree with Kennedy on firing a special prosecutor and had to be punished years later, ushering in an era of contentious SCOTUS nomination hearings where decades of writings would be scoured for anything that could be used against a nominee - meaning our SCOTUS nominees are no longer allowed to have had opinions. What damage do you think the Kavanaugh revenge circus is going to do?

Years-delayed political revenge is not conducive to a functioning democratic republic.

"Do you know how many black men lost their lives because people were told to 'believe all white women'?"

Oh, I dunno.

How many?

Conan,

In 1998 Kavanaugh personally argued that the sitting president of the united states should be impeached for lying under oath in a civil deposition.

His constructed legal theory was not built off of lying to a grand jury as you put it.

Back then, what he did was orchestrate a question and answer session in a civil deposition which would have required one of 2 things to happen:

1 - The president admitting under oath that he had cheated on his wife.

2 - The president perjuring himself to keep a consensual affair a secret.

That is the guy you are now defending and saying how aweful it is that he would be subject to such a "lynch mob" as you put it.

When he was part of a lynch mob you did not care... you still do not care.

Kavanaugh has now lied under oath in front of the senate judiciary committee regarding his own personal activities with regard to the legality of his underage alcohol consumption.

That is a matter of fact that is easily proven on the basis of historic state law, and Kavanaugh's date of birth.

The point is that Kavanaugh no longer meets his own standard for holding high public office.

That you want to overlook this unfortunate irony is evidence of your own deep seeded partisanship.

I am simply following Kavanaughs own legal arguments and holding him to exactly the same standard he was holding others to.

"Years-delayed political revenge is not conducive to a functioning democratic republic."

This isn't political revenge Conan.

If you show up before a court with unclean hands they will turn you away.

Kavanaugh is showing up before the court of public opinion with unclean hands and asking to be treated differently than he treated others.

I am under no obligation to be nicer to him than he has been to other people.

He doesn't get to set up one set of rules for everyone else and then get to follow his own special set of rules.

I am demanding philosophical consistency of a person who wants to sit on the highest court in the country, nothing more.

We can't have justices that want different rules for different people.

Conan Says:

"William Jefferson Clinton committed the crime he was accused of committing - perjury."

I wanted to do a bit of research to confirm before I commented... but it looks like he was just accused of committing perjury.

He was never convicted for the crime as part of the Starr investigation and Clinton and his legal team maintained a legal defense that he did not actually lie under oath.

Their defense maintained that even misleading answers can’t be regarded as perjury if they are literally true (I'm not saying I like this argument... I am just saying t existed and was never defeated in court).

Given the fact that he was never convicted of anything and he maintained a legal defense that wasn't defeated in court... how are you asserting his guilt???

What suddenly happened to your core moral principle that people being treated as innocent until they are proven guilty???

Or does that only apply when it is convenient for you?

You see Conan, at the end of the day you are very willing to hold people to account outside of the ethical framework you are demanding for Kavanaugh... you are just applying different standards for different people depending upon what political party they happen to be affiliated with.

My position is consistent... it is reasonable to measure people by the same measuring stick they use for other people.

That isn't about revenge, it isn't about partisanship, it isn't about a failure to follow basis moral principles.

What it is about is ensuring that people treat others fairly because ultimately they will be judged in exactly the same way.

When people are permitted to use double standards they have less incentive to be fair to other people.

Judges especially should not be in the habit of using double standards.

You may need a dictionary Arty. This word consistent doesn't mean what you think it means.

Artie, the fact that you think lies about Kavanaugh are just rewards for him being part of Ken Starr's investigative and prosecutorial staff tells me a lot about you, none of it good.

Given the fact that [Clinton] was never convicted of anything and he maintained a legal defense that wasn't defeated in court... how are you asserting his guilt??? ~ Artemis at September 29, 2018 11:44 PM

Not defeated in court? It never went to court. However, Clinton was disbarred in two states for a period and banned from arguing in front of the Supreme Court for life. Those penalties were for the crime of perjury, not for the accusations thereof.

There was solid (perhaps liquid) evidence of Clinton's guilt even if he weaseled his way out with misleading, but "literally true" statements; even if he was let go by the Senate due to a contentious political climate.

We all saw the speech in which Willie-Jeff said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." And yet, he did. We all remember "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

So, yeah, Clinton was guilty, even if unconnected in a court of law. There was actual evidence. And if there were actual evidence of Brett Kavanaugh assaulting Ford or participating in weekly gang rape parties, I'd say the same about him. But there's zero evidence.

If the FBI uncovers some evidence, it will be a different story and I'll support withdrawing Kavanaugh's name. Even so, the Democrats' handling of this hearing will still have been disgraceful and the wound to our democracy made by that disgraceful handling probably mortal.

Kavanaugh has now lied under oath in front of the senate judiciary committee regarding his own personal activities with regard to the legality of his underage alcohol consumption.

Kavanaugh has admitted he drank as a high school senior.

Can you prove he drank while underage? You gotta read something more than Vox, dude. Find the blue dress evidence on Kavanaugh and we'll talk. The hazy recollection of a drunken teenager is not evidence, nor are youthful boasts made in a yearbook.

The problem for him is that the drinking age was actually 21 for him because he never made the cut off. ~ Artemis at September 29, 2018 2:36 PM

The drinking age in DC in 1983 was 18. In Maryland, it was 21 (changed in July 1982). It was not unusual then for teenagers in Maryland to drive to DC to get beer. Kavanaugh turned 18 in February 1983. Kavanaugh graduated Georgetown Prep in 1983.

Now, if you want to argue that he should not have been drinking in Maryland at 18, well, you may have a point. I don't know if the Maryland laws then covered transport, possession, and consumption or only purchase. However, he did legally obtain beer, even at 18.

Ben,

Consistent means exactly what I am saying it does.

It means to apply the same standard across the board.

Kavanaugh himself stated that lying under oath during a question and answer session regarding sexual misconduct was grounds for impeachment.

By the exact same logic, lying under oath is disqualifying for the office of the supreme court.

Or are you saying that this isn't a fair assessment because lying under oath is okay for justices... but not for presidents?

If that is your argument I have to conclude that none of this is about facts or logic for you.

Conan,

I am not talking about lies about Kavanaugh... I am talking about lies Kavanaugh himself has said while under oath during these proceedings.

The point is that outside of any of the claims made against him he stepped in it all on his own by violating his own stated standard for holding high public office.

"Not defeated in court? It never went to court."

Correct... so innocent until proven guilty, right???

"There was solid (perhaps liquid) evidence of Clinton's guilt even if he weaseled his way out with misleading, but "literally true" statements"

And here is where all of this is going to come back and bite you in the ass.

I actually agree with you that Clinton was misleading... I actually agree with you that even if it never went to court it is fair to say he perjured himself.

However that isn't the standard you have been using with Kavanaugh. For Kavanaugh it has been innocent until proven guilty... full stop.

The point is that as it stands today, Kavanaugh at best was incredibly misleading during his recent testimony during his confirmation hearing.

In other words... apply the same standard and he too is guilty of committing perjury while under oath.

"Can you prove he drank while underage?"

He said so in his own sworn testimony Conan.

He said he was drinking beer over the summer of 1982 on the basis of his own personal calendars and his statements made under oath.

His statement verbatim was as follows:

“I liked beer. I still like beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink... Sometimes probably had too many beers.”

He was talking about his own Senior year in high school and implying that while he was drinking at the time... it was legal for seniors to drink.

Except not all seniors were legal to drink... only those born before a specific time... and he wasn't one of them.

At best he he is weaseling "his way out with misleading, but "literally true" statements"... the same thing you just said makes Clinton guilty of purjury under oath... the same thing that Kavanaugh argued as a lawyer was purjury.

As I said... I am just judging Kavanaugh by the Kavanaugh standard. It is that simple.

Conan Says:

"You gotta read something more than Vox, dude."

Consider me shocked and appalled that you would present such a smear without evidence.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Why would you just accuse me of gathering my information from dubious sources without any actually evidence to justify such a baseless smear.

Are you starting to get the picture Conan that you have never really functioned in a way that supports you contention that smears are only legitimate if you have evidence?... you are constantly accusing folks of things you have no direct evidence for... this isn't a new habit of yours.

By the way... my information comes from the associated press... not vox:

https://apnews.com/e4a48c01f3bf4094b9faea33cd049729

Correct... so innocent until proven guilty, right??? ~ Artemis at September 30, 2018 9:46 AM

Wrong.

According to The New York Times Clinton admitted his guilt and reached a plea deal with the special prosecutor to avoid criminal charges for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Mr. Clinton admitted for the first time to ''testifying falsely'' when he denied an affair with Monica Lewinsky during a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. Most people will properly see that as an admission that he lied under oath, notwithstanding the semantic quibbling of Mr. Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall.

As part of the deal, Mr. Clinton also accepted a five-year suspension of his license to practice law in Arkansas and agreed to pay a $25,000 fine. In exchange, Mr. Ray has agreed to close his investigation without filing any criminal charges against Mr. Clinton for perjury or obstruction of justice.

--------------------------------------------------

Except not all seniors were legal to drink... only those born before a specific time... and he wasn't one of them.

~ Artemis at September 30, 2018 9:46 AM

In February of his senior year, it was legal for him to purchase, possess, and consume alcohol in DC, a few miles down the road from his school. It was illegal for him to purchase it in Maryland, but I don't know whether it was illegal for him to consume or possess it in Maryland.

The 1983 National Minimum Drinking Age Act compelled states to raise the drinking age (a legally vague term) to 21 by 1986 or forego 10% of their federal highway funds. DC's drinking age went up to 21 in 1986. The Act was controversial and many state legislatures bristled at the federal pressure to regulate what they thought was strictly a state concern, including Maryland's.

"In addition, the purchase age is not necessarily the same as the minimum age for consumption of alcoholic beverages, although they have often been the same." Was Maryland's in 1983?

Some states made specific exemptions for underage consumption or possession - e.g., underage wait staff in establishments serving alcohol were allowed to possess, but not consume. Other states incorporated parental permissions into consumption laws, retaining the federally-mandated higher age for purchase.

Today, Maryland's drinking age laws allow underage consumption, within certain specific circumstances: "Maryland allows minors to drink on the premises of non alcohol-selling premises as long as there is parental consent. They also allow drinking for religious purposes. Alcohol is also allowed to be consumed by minors if the person who gives the alcohol to the minor is an adult member of the minor’s immediate family. There are some states that prohibit minors from drinking under any circumstances. It’s not odd that minors are allowed to drink with parental consent and presence. There are a number of states that allow for minors to drink as long as an adult family member provides the alcohol and gives permission."

It's not inconceivable that seniors in high school in Maryland in 1983 exploited similar loopholes to "legally" consume alcohol - or deluded themselves that they were - or, given the grandfather clause, that they were confused about their ability to legally consume alcohol. Speculation? Yes. I haven't been able to discover if there was a possession/consumption loophole in 1983 Maryland.

As I said... I am just judging Kavanaugh by the Kavanaugh standard. It is that simple. ~ Artemis at September 30, 2018 9:46 AM

No, you're twisting it to condemn a man you already decided was guilty. You've shown no impartiality in this at all. You've accepted the accusations as valid despite the lack of proof.

These are not even unsupported accusations, they're refuted ones. They've been refuted by the very witnesses named to corroborate them.

You want the Kavanaugh nomination withdrawn, not because you see him as unfit, but for purely political reasons.

Your insistence on an investigation based on already-refuted (refuted under oath) allegations betrays your bias.

By the way... my information comes from the associated press... not vox:

Perhaps, but your arguments sound an awful lot like the ones being made on or by Vox these days - down to the details, in fact. Uncannily so.

--------------------------------------------------

Now, I think we've argued this quite enough. We're not going to change each other's minds. I'm going to move on to the latest topic. Feel free to post something more if you like. I'll probably read it, but I won't respond.

Conan Quotes:

"Most people will properly see that as an admission that he lied under oath, notwithstanding the semantic quibbling of Mr. Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall."

Right... so now guilt is determined by what "most" people sill see... not based on proof or evidence.

It is based on perception.

That is the same argument I was making through this entire thread and you kept objecting that it needs to be based on proof.

The reality is that he was never found guilty... and there exists a legal argument that he isn't... yet you presume he is guilty anyway.

None of this is about some absolute moral standard for you Conan... it is about situational moral standards depending upon who the accused happens to be.

"In February of his senior year, it was legal for him to purchase, possess, and consume alcohol in DC, a few miles down the road from his school. It was illegal for him to purchase it in Maryland, but I don't know whether it was illegal for him to consume or possess it in Maryland."

His testamony was about the summer of 1982 Conan.

The summer leadning into his senior year.

He was only 17 years old at the time... and he was constantly saying that the seniors were legal to drink.

Who was he talking about Conan?... he was talking about the students entering their senior year that upcomming fall.

He was testafying that he and his other friends were legal to drink. I have no idea how old his friends were so maybe they were... but Kavanaugh himself most definitely was underage and he testified that the seniors were legal... he certainly didn't exclude himself from that statement.

"Was Maryland's in 1983?"

It is telling that you only want to talk about 1983 when the time period of interest was the summer of 1982.

What does 1983 have to do with any of this???

The only reason to focus on 1983 is to give you some wiggle room to argue he was legal in DC because he was 18 in 1983.

However he was 17 in 1982... he wasn't legal anywhere.

"It's not inconceivable that seniors in high school in Maryland in 1983 exploited similar loopholes to "legally" consume alcohol - or deluded themselves that they were - or, given the grandfather clause, that they were confused about their ability to legally consume alcohol."

Good grief Conan... you are now arguing that a nominee for the supreme court was so delusional that he thought that during the summer of 1982 when he was 17 years old.. he actually believed that he was 18 years old and that is was 1983.

Assuming you are correct... and that Kavanaugh is indeed that delusional... then we can't have a crazy person on the court either.

He knows he was 17 years old in 1982, he knows it was illegal for him to drink, he knows he kept saying the seniors were legal to drink that summer... and if he doesn't know any of these things then he is too stupid to serve as a justice on the highest court in the land.

"Perhaps, but your arguments sound an awful lot like the ones being made on or by Vox these days - down to the details, in fact. Uncannily so."

Again... consider me shocked that you didn't consider me innocent until proven guilty of your baseless smear.

When Stanley Clarke quit Return to Forever their morning bagels became bassless schmears.

Still tasty, though.

> When Stanley Clarke quit
> Return to Forever

Dood.

Well, let's look at more than a single point:

Bork

Thomas

Oh...it looks like this wasn't a one off.

But even to that point: This Senate is not the Senate of the 80's or 90's. It would have been UNTHINKABLE to pass Obamacare in any prior Senate because those prior Senators were far more centerist and committed to shared ideals. This is no longer the case of the median Democrat.

The Pew Research Center has data STRONGLY supporting this. The Left has veered wildly Left since 2004 and did so before the Right started veering somewhat Right (they are still far more centerist than the Dems).

Here are some questions for Artemis:

Is Kavanaugh more or less tempermental than Hillary Clinton or Patrick Leahy?

Does he have a greater or lesser alcohol problem than Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy?

Has his history with women been better or worse than that of Bill Clinton, Robert Menendez, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken etc?

And yet Kavanaugh is not qualified, but these men...were?

When you run a con, you always put time pressure on everyone involved so they can't think things through.

So by the very tactics used by these luminaries, one should ask MANY questions. This is a hatchet job, one some folks welcome because 'abortion'.

But the only women one SHOULD listen to, according to Artemis, is Ford and not the SIXTY women who say the best things about him. Why don't you believe those women?

And as long as Kavanaugh is Republican and White and Male and possibly not as Pro-Abortion as you are, I am SURE you can find at least one reason to reproach him, Artemis.

Let me address that 'company' analogy.

Amazon, when it started, was a joke of a company. The joke back in the early 2000's was 'lose a little on every transaction...and make it up in scale!'

So the early Amazon had it's bumps and burbles.

It is now a powerhouse. They are not the company they were before, and it hasn't for many years.

Kavanaugh was, EVEN IF TRUE, only 17. He was a minor. Another norm Artemis wants to throw away because 'abortion' is the holding minor offenses against someone forever. Because we were all young and stupid once. (Well, probably only Republicans. She probably forgave Adult Obama his cocaine use...oops!)

So to exoriate Kavanaugh NOW for a drunken grope a generation ago, is equivilent to saying that Artemis shouldn't be listened to because she used to wet her bed...and anyone who wet their bed clearly lacks self control.

This is partisan nonsense.

What the Democrats and Artemis are TRYING to do is stall until their prayers of a 2018 Democratic Senate are answered...so they can put their own stooge into place.

They think they are so clever no one notices...except the vast majority of commenters who have clearly noted this.

FIDO:

"Is Kavanaugh more or less tempermental than Hillary Clinton or Patrick Leahy?
Does he have a greater or lesser alcohol problem than Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy?

Has his history with women been better or worse than that of Bill Clinton, Robert Menendez, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken etc?
And yet Kavanaugh is not qualified, but these men...were?"

I never claimed any of those folks were qualified for anything.

You are attempting to assert a hypocrisy on my part that simply does not exist.

The hypocrite here is Kavanaugh who was quite clear that lying under oath is a disqualifying feature for holding public office... he said so on many occasions.

He has now lied under oath while seeking public office.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand

FIDO Says:

"Kavanaugh was, EVEN IF TRUE, only 17. He was a minor. Another norm Artemis wants to throw away because 'abortion' is the holding minor offenses against someone forever. Because we were all young and stupid once. (Well, probably only Republicans. She probably forgave Adult Obama his cocaine use...oops!)"

I don't think you are actually comprehending the issue I am discussing, so let me spell it out for you.

The issue at hand is that Kavanaugh at age 53 has lied under oath regarding his activities in his youth.

The problem is no longer simply what he did in his youth... it is about what he has done as of last week.

And it isn't sufficient to give him a pass for lying about indiscretions that might stain his reputation... he literally drafted the legal papers detailing why this isn't a reasonable excuse.

FIDO Says:

"But the only women one SHOULD listen to, according to Artemis, is Ford and not the SIXTY women who say the best things about him."

I never said any of this... you are having a conversation with a fictional person from your own imagination.

I never claimed anyone should listen to anyone in particular. I have simply been arguing that the standards in a job interview are different than the standards in a criminal trial.

When/If you are ready to have an actually conversation with me and actually address my real and stated opinions please let me know.

Until then you are just rambling and delusional.

FIDO Says:

"Kavanaugh was, EVEN IF TRUE, only 17. He was a minor. Another norm Artemis wants to throw away because 'abortion' is the holding minor offenses against someone forever. Because we were all young and stupid once."

Just to be clear, your position is that even if he did sexually assault someone in his youth... and even if he repeatedly lied under oath before the senate regarding those ellegations... you have no issued confirming to the supreme court someone who is willing to violate the law before the legislative branch of government?

You are basically arguing that even if it is factually true that Kavanaugh doesn't respect or adhere to the rule of law... he should be confirmed anyway.

Please note you are not arguing for his innocence here... you are arguing that even if he is guilty of what he is accused... and as a direct consequncy guilty of lying over and over and over about those events as recently as last week... that shouldn't be disqualifying to be a member of the SCOTUS.

You are arguing that you are okay with confirming dishonest people to the highest court in the land.

Amazing...