Oh no she just din't! Kavanaugh Kontroversy!

Starker on 6/10/2018 at 17:02

It kind of speaks a lot about the climate in the US when the characters and testimonies of sexual assault victims have to be pitch perfect for them to be even taken seriously. And so you see even small, easily explained discrepancies being blown up to mean that the woman must obviously be lying (or, more charitably, be confused about the whole thing).

And, equally, you see all the corroborating evidence being completely disregarded. Like, for example, when Mark Judge's ex-girlfriend said he confessed a gang rape to her, then it obviously must not be true, because the whole idea is ridiculous and completely absurd:

Quote:

(https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez)

After seeing Judge's denial, Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that “ ‘no horseplay' took place at Georgetown Prep with women.” Rasor stressed that “under normal circumstances, I wouldn't reveal information that was told in confidence,” but, she said, “I can't stand by and watch him lie.” In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, “Mark told me a very different story.” Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. But Rasor was disturbed by the story and noted that it undercut Judge's protestations about the sexual innocence of Georgetown Prep.

But of course, whether she speaks the truth and whether Kavanaugh knew about his best friend doing things like that are not important in the least for Republicans. What's important is that hey finally get to shift the Supreme Court ideologically, even if it means rushing their candidate through. Because winning and hurting liberals is all that matters.

Nicker on 6/10/2018 at 20:39

Well it is done. The tiny but savage hands of Donald Trump will now grope generations yet unborn, through his perjurous puking proxy.

Nameless Voice on 6/10/2018 at 20:57

No real surprise there.

I'd like to think that this time they've gone too far and the Republican party are finished after this, but... That's not how America works.

Renzatic on 6/10/2018 at 21:18

It's pretty obvious that the Democrats screwed themselves pretty hard on this one. Ford may have been telling the truth, but she didn't have the evidence to back it up. They overplayed their hand, damaging not only the #metoo movement, but have jeopardized their big blue wave.

I've always said that Democrats might have their hearts in the right place, but they're an overeager, gormless bunch, always wearing their emotions on their sleeves. They're easily countered by the GOP machine when it's working at full capacity, which it has been these last few weeks.

The Republicans now control all three branches of the government, and are likely to continue doing so for the next two years. As long as the economy continues screaming along, they're nigh untouchable.

Vae on 6/10/2018 at 21:32

Quote Posted by Nameless Voice

Before this whole situation, I only knew these things about Brett Kavanaugh:

* He's the man that the Republican Party, and Trump, want to put into the Supreme Court
* He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade and criminalise abortion in the USA

The second one of those already makes me suspicious of him, because it means that he thinks he has the right to take away women's control over their own bodies. The fact that he's being nominated by someone who we already know is extremely sexist and misogynistic doesn't really help, though it's anecdotal.

Yes, the first one is obvious and correct...however, your second thing you "know", is partly uncertain and partly incorrect.

There are two parts to number "2":

"He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade"

This is unknown. He stated, "Roe vs. Wade is settled law" at the hearing, when Senator Feinstein asked him about an email from 2003, where he made the comment, "I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent". He said that comment was in an academic context, and that he agrees with Justice Roberts (a current conservative Supreme Court Justice) that Roe is settled law. Keep in mind that a Supreme Court precedent, such as Roe vs. Wade, is generally difficult to overturn, even if there is a willingness to do so.

So, the answer to this is probably not...and even in the off chance that he really wants to overturn Roe, it won't be easy.

Okay, now to part two of "2":

"(He wants to) criminalise abortion in the USA"

Now, this is incorrect...and I can assure you that won't happen.

Even if somehow there is a willingness and a way to convince all five conservative justices to overturn Roe, abortion law would be set on a state-by-state basis, by each of the 50 State Supreme Courts...and a Federal Supreme Court that is controlled by conservatives would never ever criminalize abortion nationwide. This is because they're the ones who believe in States' Rights, as opposed to the progressive Democrats, who philosophically believe in strengthening the authoritarian control of central government.

So they're simply opposed to that idea, philosophically...In addition, that kind of move would likely invoke a civil war, which by itself virtually negates this from happening.

Quote:

Then we get the actual case. I haven't seen the full testimony of either parties, just the parts that were on the news here, plus I watched the episode of Last Week Tonight that was linked earlier, which also had some footage.

I obviously don't know if Ford's testimony is true, but it certainly seemed plausible.
Points in her favour are that:

* Women don't usually lie about these sort of cases - yes it happens, but it's rare.

Well, I wouldn't say that it's rare, but would agree that most of the time, under normal day-to-day circumstances, they wouldn't be flat-out lying about it...Yet, this isn't your typical situation, and should not be conflated in such a way.

In any case, the accuser should be heard, but not automatically believed...and if they are unable to provide evidence to substantiate their claim, that claim then becomes invalid and is removed from consideration.

Quote:

* She's putting herself and her family in a spotlight where she will get a lot of hatred. Would she willingly do that to herself if she didn't believe it was the right thing to do?

There are plenty of possible reasons for this:

1) As a registered Democrat and political adversary, she could be thinking of herself as a hero...one who is willing to put herself through an uncomfortable ordeal in order to achieve the "greater good", by blocking a conservative judge that threatens the ideological objectives of the progressive Democrat party.

2) She could have been offered a "pay off" by her political allies, to modify her incident to include Kavanaugh as the perpetrator.

3) She could be delusional about what actually happened, due to a undiagnosed mental disorder.

4) She could have been drunk the night of the incident, and mixed up the people, time, and place involved, due to memory distortion from drinking.

5) She could have a secret personal vendetta against the accused, and taking such action would fulfill her desire for vengeance.

These are examples of real possibilities as to why she would come forward with testimony...and this is precisely the reason why the accused has the presumption of innocence, and will remain innocent, unless the accuser can substantiate their claim, which she failed to do.

Quote:

* She answered questions clearly and to the point, even when she found them stressful, which speaks of either actually remembering what happened, or being extremely well coached.

As a trained psychologist, Dr. Ford would be perfectly capable of presenting herself in a well-constructed manner, whether she believed what she was saying was true (which doesn't mean that it is true), or if she was lying...so this is evidence of nothing, other than her ability to present herself well.

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

Quote:

Now, people are saying that the Democrats are using this as a political stunt to try to wrest power away from the Republicans. Of course they are. The Democrats are no saints, and will use anything they can to get an advantage, just like the Republicans would.

Absolutely true...If the situation were reversed, I have no doubt the Republicans would try to take full advantage of their political opportunity to retain power.

Quote:

But the question is if there's some kind of a conspiracy orchestrated by the Democrats to make Ford step forwards, or if they are just taking advantage of the situation. I'm inclined to believe the latter, because:

* What do the Democrats stand to gain that would be worth the huge risk of the backlash if they were caught out?

They would block the huge Republican victory of having a majority of conservative judges on the Supreme Court. That's more than enough motive to do whatever it takes, right there...and even in the unlikely event that they would be caught, the risk/reward ratio favors an ideologically justified, orchestrated action, against the Republicans.

Quote:

* They could keep Kavanaugh out of the Supreme Court, but the Republicans have a whole list of others who they could nominate and who would also oppose Roe vs Wade (though possibly aren't quite as strong Trump supporters).

It's true that there are others waiting in line. However, consider the following:

1) If they were successful at delaying Kavanaugh's confirmation with blind emotional belief, then they would have set a new lower standard for future political actions.

2) A new nominee would not be potentially confirmed until after the midterm elections, by which it is possible the Democrats could obstruct any candidate they wish, without resorting to extreme methods.

Anyhow, since Kavanaugh has now been confirmed, we will see what happens in November.

Starker on 6/10/2018 at 21:39

Quote Posted by Renzatic

I generally agree that Democrats are a crap party, but really, what were their options here other than pointing out that the process is flawed? Do you realise how it would have looked if they had discouraged the Ford hearing or even stayed silent about it? Asking for an investigation was completely sensible and usually it has been the normal practice to reopen the investigation in the case new evidence came to light.

Also, Ford did have evidence. Direct evidence, even. Witness testimony does count as evidence. She didn't damage the #metoo movement, she only pointed out how ridiculous the standards are for sexual assault victims. You may be telling the truth, but you better have a flawless character, unwavering recollection of events, and undeniable evidence to back it up, or else you can be dismissed right off the bat.

Renzatic on 6/10/2018 at 22:08

Quote Posted by Starker

What they should've done was play dirty politics. Get Ford up on stage, then let the nomination scream along at its previously brisk pace. That way they could've claimed Ford was sacrificed on the alter of Republican ambition, and played that up until the election.

Instead, they went ahead with a week long FBI background check that wouldn't have extended far beyond what we've already heard, ultimately damaging their own cause. This wasn't a full investigation. The FBI were limited only to interviewing those on record in the senate. It was merely going over what had already been stated with a finer tooth comb.

Maybe the investigation was the right thing to do, but it wasn't the right thing to do. Being honorable and just in Washington DC only serves to get your throat slit. Politics is the art of making yourself look good in front of the voting public to get what you want, something the GOP, for all their other faults, are incredibly good at doing.

Look at McConnell as the go-to example. Here's a guy who stymied Obama throughout most of his presidency, managed to delay his vote for SCOTUS until he was out of office, giving the Republicans the free choice, and rushed Kavanaugh through a suspiciously expedient hearing in order to get him seated before a questionable November election. Yet here he is, looking like the victim, a man simply trying to do his job in the face of rabid, overwhelming opposition willing to play dirty to get what they want. The GOP base will eat this story up. The moderates and independents now look at the issue as being far more grey than it was previously. He has succeeded in shaping the narrative.

Say what you will about the man and his complete lack of scruples, he is damn good at his job.

Renzatic on 6/10/2018 at 22:16

Quote Posted by Vae

...and a Federal Supreme Court that is controlled by conservatives would never ever criminalize abortion nationwide. This is because they're the ones who believe in States' Rights, as opposed to the progressive Democrats, who philosophically believe in strengthening the authoritarian control of central government.

As a logical, freethinking individual unswayed by the emotional bleating of crass propagandists...

: proceeds to sprout propaganda :

Starker on 6/10/2018 at 22:18

It might be tempting to go the Newt Gingrich route, but I can't help but think that Democrats would lose a lot of votes if they played it that way.

Renzatic on 6/10/2018 at 22:21

They don't necessarily have to plumb those same depths, but being able to perform basic strategy and tactics would do them a fuckload of favors.