Brett Kavanaugh's new, colder reality

Singularity

Moderator
Oct 2009
33,692
28,432
Kansas
They were being nice. What are they going to do, interrogate a woman who claims to be a rape victim on national television?
That's, uh, what they did. For the most part they relied on their professional and suitably female prosecutor to do it for them, but that happened on their authority.

Give her the third degree? That's a lose lose situation. And that was the whole idea. Democrats absolutely wanted to create those optics. Which is why you had scenes like Cory Booker serving Blasey Ford a cup of water on camera. She was a prop for him to put on a little virtue signal show.
Why do I gather from you that Ford is some kind of Democratic plant? Is that really what you believe?

But it does show that the idea was to smear Kavanaugh with false accusations.
All accusations can be described as smears if one is prepared to disregard things like a victim statement, circumstantial evidence, the defendant's own behavior ...

I concur with @Djinn ... which is worse, making Kavanaugh face his accuser before he gets a job, or suppressing the nomination completely, as was done with Garland?

Where the nominee didn't even have a chance to present his merits or face his faults? What's worse?

It's borne out by history.
Certainly not. Kavanaugh's reputation will go down in history, that much is certain.

Nominating anyone else would have rewarded the vicious smear campaign.
How? It's a job interview process. When one candidate has problems, you go with somebody else.

The frame of mind you assigned to this entire mess are really unreasonable. This was not a criminal trial! It was a hiring process for a really important job with life tenure.

It ought to be harsh.
 
Jul 2019
1,889
584
Toronto
Doesnt look like trump had any effect on a trend that began long before he threw his hat in the ring.



But it is just like him to claim credit for the work done by others.
Huh?
Were you trying to say something meaningful?
No?

Someone wake me if she does ok?
 

Libertine

Moderator
Apr 2015
15,934
3,084
Katmandu
I guess that’s why “the left” accused Neil Gorsuch of being a rapist and why they dragged his name through the mud...oh wait, that didn’t happen. That’s probably because Gorsuch isn’t a lying, drunken piece of shit with a frat boy entitled mentality. Barstool Brett does not have the temperament to sit on the Supreme Court. He’s a national embarrassment. But hey, he’s a Trump taint licker, so it’s all good.
Kavanaugh was well respected with an outstanding record until he was smeared with lies.
 

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
97,472
34,191
Pittsburgh, PA
That's, uh, what they did. For the most part they relied on their professional and suitably female prosecutor to do it for them, but that happened on their authority.
Don't mistake kindness for weakness. Just because someone didn't take a harsh tone with Ford does not mean that her story was credible. It wasn't. Her own witnesses couldn't corroborate her.


Why do I gather from you that Ford is some kind of Democratic plant? Is that really what you believe?
Ford's own lawyer admitted that the motivation was political.
“When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”


All accusations can be described as smears if one is prepared to disregard things like a victim statement, circumstantial evidence, the defendant's own behavior ...
Or that the accusations didn't just so happened to be made when he was being nominated to the Supreme Court despite several background checks earlier in his legal career. And that all of the accusations were not credible.

I concur with @Djinn ... which is worse, making Kavanaugh face his accuser before he gets a job, or suppressing the nomination completely, as was done with Garland?
What would you rather have happen: miss out on a job or be accused of rape in front of the entire nation?
Where the nominee didn't even have a chance to present his merits or face his faults? What's worse?
No one is entitled to a Supreme Court seat. They aren't even entitled to a vote on a nomination.


Certainly not. Kavanaugh's reputation will go down in history, that much is certain.
Based entirely on meritless claims and because of a political faction that felt entitled to revenge because they lost.


How? It's a job interview process. When one candidate has problems, you go with somebody else.

The frame of mind you assigned to this entire mess are really unreasonable. This was not a criminal trial! It was a hiring process for a really important job with life tenure.

It ought to be harsh.
How many job interviews have you even heard of where the applicant was accused of sexual assault?
You can't complain about how Merrick Garland was treated and then say that this process should be harsh. It's one or the other. People sit here and complain about how Kavanaugh reacted. How was he supposed to react? Should he have laughed it off? He was accused of just about the worst thing someone can do and he's supposed to sit there and stoically take it?
 

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
97,472
34,191
Pittsburgh, PA
They didn't need to smear him. It's easier and more effective to prohibit a vote. You "smear" someone only when you can't completely and utterly squash their efforts in a single procedural move. If conservatives could have simply prevented Barack Obama from running for president, there would have been no effort to smear him with accusations of being Kenyan, Muslim, a drug addict, and god-knows-what-else.

Smearing is what you do when you can't make the person disappear completely, as Republicans did with Garland.
Do you really want to rationalize accusing a man of being a rapist in front of the entire country as just politics?
 

Singularity

Moderator
Oct 2009
33,692
28,432
Kansas
How was he supposed to react? Should he have laughed it off? He was accused of just about the worst thing someone can do and he's supposed to sit there and stoically take it?
I'm going to limit my response to this both for the sake of time and because of my realization that we just can't agree on all other matters.

Yes, he absolutely is. He's a judge. The way he behaved on national TV was disgraceful. I don't care if you're liberal, conservative, whatever. A judge is not supposed to behave that way, yelling at members of Congress for asking him questions, no matter how aggressive the questions. He totally lost it. He would not tolerate conduct like that in his courtroom from any defendant for any reason. I don't care how justified some people have convinced themselves it is.

It is not a question of justification. It is a question of decorum, of conduct, of being a judge. If he was fully justified, that's cause to let him go on being a federal judge given the extraordinary circumstances. I don't believe it was. I'm still shocked over watching that. Not as a Democrat, not as a registered Republican as I happen to be, but as an American, I remain deeply disturbed that one of our highest ranking jurists is prepared to behave that way.