B Kavanough and MeToo

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I also noticed the Democrats are asking that the FBI results are not made public. Any ideas why?

You have this exactly backwards.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-fbi-kavanaugh-report-public_us_5bb3c909e4b0876eda992325

Quote

Mitch McConnell Says FBI’s Kavanaugh Report Won’t Be Made Public

Democrats say the American people should see the results before the full Senate votes on the Supreme Court nominee.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

You have this exactly backwards.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-fbi-kavanaugh-report-public_us_5bb3c909e4b0876eda992325

 

Thanks.  From your link:

"Also on Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said she didn’t know if the report should be made public"

I had seen that somewhere else but did not understand the rationale.  I think your link better explains it.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I also noticed the Democrats Republicans are asking that the FBI results are not made public. Any ideas why?

I think it's fear, as usual. Fear that they'll anger Trump's base if they don't push through the nomination, and fear they'll anger their own bases if they seat someone who turns out to be an amoral alcoholic. I think they know they have a crap hand and want to play it as close to the vest as possible. Why risk more corruption and immorality coming to light? 

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

What do you mean?

Garland was a SCOTUS nominee under Obama. The republicans blocked his nomination so he did not even got to a hearing. Gorsuch was a confirmed Trump Scotus nominee who essentially got Garland's slot instead. I.e. Trump was not even there yet and partisanship nuked a candidate. The start of this extreme partisanship was at the very least visible starting with the Obama administration, where the republicans started to vote en bloc. I.e. more like in an European parliamentary fashion thant it used to be. At some point a similar consolidation of the Democrats happened, though it does not seem to be nearly as coordinated as with the Republicans. In Gorsuch's confirmation three Democrats, most likely strategically, voted to confirm, for example.

 

Quote

I think it's fear, as usual. Fear that they'll anger Trump's base if they don't push through the nomination, and fear they'll anger their own bases if they seat someone who turns out to be an amoral alcoholic. I think they know they have a crap hand and want to play it as close to the vest as possible. Why risk more corruption and immorality coming to light? 

I do believe that traditionally background checks are not made public. Though this case is quite unusual.

Edited October 3, 2018 by CharonY

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Garland was a SCOTUS nominee under Obama. The republicans blocked his nomination so he did not even got to a hearing. Gorsuch was a confirmed Trump Scotus nominee who essentially got Garland's slot instead. I.e. Trump was not even there yet and partisanship nuked a candidate.

I do believe that traditionally background checks are not made public. Though this case is quite unusual.

OK. Cheers.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

You have this exactly backwards.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-fbi-kavanaugh-report-public_us_5bb3c909e4b0876eda992325

 

I had misread the post. I misread it as asking why Dems wanted the report public. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

This has nothing to do with the context of my post and what I would do is supercilious to this conversation as I am neither a Senator or a SCOTUS nominee nor do I ever intend to run for the Senate or accept a SCOTUS nomination. 

How is she a pawn of her claims predate the current political environment and Democrats hold themselves to the same standard? What is the evidence?

I assume because they are collecting all the related evidence first to beat organize which questions to ask. 

That is the fault of Republicans and not the fault of Democrats. 

Transparency?

first bolded:  If she has proof that naming Kavanaugh predates his nomination that does lend credence (but not proof, of course) to her allegations but says nothing about how she is being used by the Democrats.

Second:

I agree. Credit to the (much too) few Republicans that have called Trump out on it.

 

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I had misread the post. I misread it as asking why Dems wanted the report public. 

No problem. I didn't have it backwards but it did come from both sides, as INow's link makes clear.

Edited October 3, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

Well since this thread has evolved from its original intent to whether B Kavanough is suitable for the Supreme Court...

I do believe both Political Parties have played games with people's lives. The Democrat senator who originally received C Blasey Ford's letter sat on it for two months until the time it would have the most damaging effect on B Kavanough's nomination, and then leaked to the public against C Blasey Ford's wishes.

I don't particularly think his responses were out of line; I might be just as embattled if I was being accused of such a thing. That being said, neither story passes the 'smell' test, but if I had to 'judge a book by its cover', I would tend to believe C Blasey Ford's version of the events.

At this point, if B Kavanough has any integrity ( and cares about his country ), he should withdraw, and let the Republicans and Democrats sort out their mess. If he believes himself to be innocent of the charges brought against himself, he is then free to pursue defamation and libel charges against all parties concerned.

This whole mess of appointing Supreme Court Judges who lean 'left' or 'right' is at the root of the problem. Politicians pass laws without doing due diligence, and then let the courts decide on the interpretation. We have the same problem here in Canada, laws which directly affect you and me, are decided by appointed ( for life ) judges, not elected politicians, who can , at election time, absolve themselves of any responsibility for bad laws, and get re-elected.
But that is probably best left for another thread.

[J.C.MacSwell]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well since this thread has evolved from its original intent to whether B Kavanough is suitable for the Supreme Court...

I do believe both Political Parties have played games with people's lives. The Democrat senator who originally received C Blasey Ford's letter sat on it for two months until the time it would have the most damaging effect on B Kavanough's nomination, and then leaked to the public against C Blasey Ford's wishes.

I don't particularly think his responses were out of line; I might be just as embattled if I was being accused of such a thing. That being said, neither story passes the 'smell' test, but if I had to 'judge a book by its cover', I would tend to believe C Blasey Ford's version of the events.

At this point, if B Kavanough has any integrity ( and cares about his country ), he should withdraw, and let the Republicans and Democrats sort out their mess. If he believes himself to be innocent of the charges brought against himself, he is then free to pursue defamation and libel charges against all parties concerned.

This whole mess of appointing Supreme Court Judges who lean 'left' or 'right' is at the root of the problem. Politicians pass laws without doing due diligence, and then let the courts decide on the interpretation. We have the same problem here in Canada, laws which directly affect you and me, are decided by appointed ( for life ) judges, not elected politicians, who can , at election time, absolve themselves of any responsibility for bad laws, and get re-elected.
But that is probably best left for another thread.

I don't agree with that. Assuming he is innocent (which I am not) he shows no lack of integrity to fight this.

i would like to think that something like this could not happen in Canada, but of course it would be possible (though different system). One thought though is that our third party would have a field day if the other two parties acted in the current manner of the Democrats and Republicans.

I have also been appalled by the obvious biases of the press and media on both sides. It has been terrible. Where can you go to get reliable News from the U.S. these days?

Edited October 3, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

I do believe both Political Parties have played games with people's lives. The Democrat senator who originally received C Blasey Ford's letter sat on it for two months until the time it would have the most damaging effect on B Kavanough's nomination, and then leaked to the public against C Blasey Ford's wishes.

It is unclear who leaked the letter. The senator you may think of (Feinstein) denied that she or her staff leaked it and the The Intercept, who got it also said that she was not the source. Of course there is always the possibility that it was a ploy all along and just used third-parties to leak it. It is true though that justified or not Democrats are using it in a partisan way. But again, the structure of the two-party system together with the polarization in the last decade or so (quite of it seemingly based on racial fears) has undermined the cross-aisle mechanisms that were built into the process. 

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't particularly think his responses were out of line; I might be just as embattled if I was being accused of such a thing.

Perhaps, but you have to remember that it was not a spur of the moment accusation. He had time to prepare himself, he knew that it was open and he knew that it was part of an application process. The fact that even under these conditions he could not deal with it calmly makes quite a few people question his judicial temperament (which the bar association already did a decade earlier and now includes quite some prominent law professors). And even if it he had less time to prepare, it would be problematic for a job candidate. Say during an interview someone in the committee digs out something that could be construed of you being a cannabis user, which would be disqualifying for your post. Would you rather calmly try to argue your case or rather try to insult the questioner in a fit of rage? The accusation may be false. The reaction, however, is telling.

[Ten oz]

58 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well since this thread has evolved from its original intent to whether B Kavanough is suitable for the Supreme Court...

I do believe both Political Parties have played games with people's lives. The Democrat senator who originally received C Blasey Ford's letter sat on it for two months until the time it would have the most damaging effect on B Kavanough's nomination, and then leaked to the public against C Blasey Ford's wishes.

I think you are misrepresenting the facts regarding how events played out. Ford notified Here Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) On July 6th before Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump and requested information on how she could share her account. Then on July 20th a couple weeks after the nomination Ford reached out to Senator Feinstein and offered up time frames in August when she'd be available to discuss the matter. Ford request confidentiality. Ford then lawyered up and took a polygraph on August 7th Here. Senator Feinstein referred the situation to the FBI Sept 12th. Between the time Ford outline her availability to Feinstein and the time Feinstein referred matters to the FBI was only a month and not a couple months. Ford reached out to Congress on her own and was rather persistent about it doing so before and after Kavanaugh was nominated. While Ford did request the matter be kept confidential she also made herself available to both speak with Feinstein and take a polygraph. Lastly Feinstein denies leaking the story. If you follow the timeline by early Sept. Ford already had lawyers and had taken a polygraph test. So by that time more people than just Feinstein knew about the allegations. The leaks could have come from one a few different place. 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Ten oz

[DirtyChai]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

the structure of the two-party system together with the polarization in the last decade or so (quite of it seemingly based on racial fears) has undermined the cross-aisle mechanisms that were built into the process. 

We might be getting a little off topic, and I'm not sure why it even bugs me, but it seems a bit odd and somewhat unnecessary here to add that part about "racial fears."  I'm not really sure what you mean by that.  Do you mean polarization due to Obama policies?  While I agree that racial issues play a role in polarization, it always seemed to me that issues relating to religion, terrorism, abortion and the LGBT movement played a large role, if not larger.

[CharonY]

31 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. 

Maybe we have to spin it off to a different thread but basically I am referring to a number of studies who have looked at things like the rise of the tea party as well as factors driving folks to vote for Trump. It is of course too simplistic to derive a single narrative. However, a consistent factor were certain, predominantly white folks who felt threatened by a (half-)black president and culminating in a backlash that was seized by the GOP. Race related factors (incl changing demographics) were far more consistent and predictive for GOP and/or Trump votes between studies than aspects like economic worries (which was at least a contributing factor) or even terrorism. Same-sex and abortion were barely a factor as a whole (essentially they were more or less a steady background, in fact LGBT worries seemed to have declined in the last years). Certain folks like Bannon used that specifically as a strategy for the Trump campaign.

[Ten oz]

53 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

We might be getting a little off topic, and I'm not sure why it even bugs me, but it seems a bit odd and somewhat unnecessary here to add that part about "racial fears."  I'm not really sure what you mean by that.  Do you mean polarization due to Obama policies?  While I agree that racial issues play a role in polarization, it always seemed to me that issues relating to religion, terrorism, abortion and the LGBT movement played a large role, if not larger.

90% of African Americans and 70% of Latinos and Asians voted Democrat on average in every election for the last couple decades. There is a stark racial divide between who supports Democrats and who supports Republican. People often play up how well Obama did with African American voter (93% in 2012) but the truth is Al Gore got 90% in 00' and Kerry received 88% in 04' of the African American vote too. The demographics of which groups vote for whom are quite stable regardless of the candidate and it predates Obama. 

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

OTOH, why has Ford not yet been approached by the FBI? Is she ever going to be properly questioned?

Seems the White House doesn't want the FBI to question either Ford or Kavanaugh. 

Quote

 

The FBI hasn’t interviewed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford because it doesn’t have clear authority from the White House to do so, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

Instead, the White House has indicated to the FBI that testimony from Kavanaugh and Ford, who has accused him of attempting to rape her when they were in high school, before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week is sufficient, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the sensitive matter.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/fbi-said-to-lack-white-house-approval-to-talk-to-kavanaugh-ford

 

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

40 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Maybe we have to spin it off to a different thread but basically I am referring to a number of studies who have looked at things like the rise of the tea party as well as factors driving folks to vote for Trump. It is of course too simplistic to derive a single narrative. However, a consistent factor were certain, predominantly white folks who felt threatened by a (half-)black president and culminating in a backlash that was seized by the GOP. Race related factors (incl changing demographics) were far more consistent and predictive for GOP and/or Trump votes between studies than aspects like economic worries (which was at least a contributing factor) or even terrorism. Same-sex and abortion were barely a factor as a whole (essentially they were more or less a steady background, in fact LGBT worries seemed to have declined in the last years). Certain folks like Bannon used that specifically as a strategy for the Trump campaign.

I have been wondering if this latest bit with Kavanaugh isn't playing into the GOPs hands? Trumps latest mocking of Ford doesn't help there cause but to a great extent this has already been factored out...people are actually giving Trump credit when he simply acts like a civil human being...and otherwise expect the worst type of behaviour. 

I suspect the latest "proven guilty when accused" until otherwise proven innocent, even where that proof may not even be possible, and the denigrating of "white men" shouldn't sit well with fair minded people. They certainly don't reflect traditional liberal values. There are good reasons behind some of what they are voicing but they are overstating their case, and this worst of the "left" just feeds and justifies (in some minds at least) the worst on the "right".

[iNow]

One also expects that they’d wait until the end to interview Ford or Kavenaugh 

[Arete]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't agree with that. Assuming he is innocent (which I am not) he shows no lack of integrity to fight this.

I think the most damning part of the whole circus is not whether he is guilty of a sexual assault 36 years ago, but the fact that under questioning about it he threw a full scale toddler tantrum. Regardless of whether or not he was a drunken groping frat boy in his youth, he put on a epic display of behavior and temperament that did not befit the position he was seeking appointment to. 

Given the Republicans have a comprehensive list of possible nominees to the supreme court, the best move for everyone would be to move on to the next candidate. 

[CharonY]

Indeed, considering that one nominee has been retracted for marijuana use as a student, this seems like a rather unnecessary fracas.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Arete said:

I think the most damning part of the whole circus is not whether he is guilty of a sexual assault 36 years ago, but the fact that under questioning about it he threw a full scale toddler tantrum. Regardless of whether or not he was a drunken groping frat boy in his youth, he put on a epic display of behavior and temperament that did not befit the position he was seeking appointment to. 

Given the Republicans have a comprehensive list of possible nominees to the supreme court, the best move for everyone would be to move on to the next candidate. 

I disagree. If the alleged assault is true, that is much worse.

 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I disagree. If the alleged assault is true, that is much worse.

 

Every SCOTUS nominee gets tough treatment from the opposing party from which they were nominated by. Republicans refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland, Sonia Sotomayor was labelled racist ", Elena Kegan saw 37 of the 41 Republicans in the Senate at the time of her confirmation vote against her and her Background was clean and her hearing uneventful. None of them got out there and gave prepared statement targeting Republicans by name and complaining about election outcomes. Kavanaugh invoked the Clintons, neither of whom hold elected office, and cried woe is me. It was the most childish and unprofessional behavior I have ever seen from a SCOTUS nominee. A plurality of the country votes Democrat. It is a very troubling thing to see a SCOTUS nominee openly condemning a single party.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Every SCOTUS nominee gets tough treatment from the opposing party from which they were nominated by. Republicans refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland, Sonia Sotomayor was labelled racist ", Elena Kegan saw 37 of the 41 Republicans in the Senate at the time of her confirmation vote against her and her Background was clean and her hearing uneventful. None of them got out there and gave prepared statement targeting Republicans by name and complaining about election outcomes. Kavanaugh invoked the Clintons, neither of whom hold elected office, and cried woe is me. It was the most childish and unprofessional behavior I have ever seen from a SCOTUS nominee. A plurality of the country votes Democrat. It is a very troubling thing to see a SCOTUS nominee openly condemning a single party.  

I agree with the bold. In fact I think it is more of a concern, by a huge margin, than any temperament issue.

But do you not agree that the alleged attempted rape was much worse if it was true?

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I agree with the bold. In fact I think it is more of a concern, by a huge margin, than any temperament issue.

But do you not agree that the alleged attempted rape was much worse if it was true?

They are both disqualifying. Worse doesn't really matter. By an inch or by a mile if Kavanaugh is unfit the Senate should vote him down. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

They are both disqualifying. Worse doesn't really matter. By an inch or by a mile if Kavanaugh is unfit the Senate should vote him down. 

1. I think we can agree that attempted rape would be disqualifying.

2. I think we can agree that openly condemning a single party is very troubling

3. I can't agree that the temperament shown Thursday is disqualifying under the circumstances. Look no further than who you Americans (I am assuming by your location) have elected President of the U.S.

But I would hope you would not equate 1. and 3. I am surprised you can't agree with that.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

1. I think we can agree that attempted rape would be disqualifying.

2. I think we can agree that openly condemning a single party is very troubling

3. I can't agree that the temperament shown Thursday is disqualifying under the circumstances

4) His loose relationship with the truth...

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Look no further than who you Americans (I am assuming by your location) have elected President of the U.S.

He lost by 3 million votes 

[J.C.MacSwell]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

4) His loose relationship with the truth...

He lost by 3 million votes 

I guess that should be "disqualifying".