The unfair and unproven character assassination of a SCOTUS nominee will now be called a 'Kavanaugh'. The apparent narrative is that this guy who has had an unblemished record for 30 years of public service was a big drinker in High School who led a ring of sexual assaulters when he wasn't attempting rape and exposing himself to helpless female students .None of his accusers have offered the tiniest sliver of proof ;and have all but admitted to faulty and incomplete recollection of the events ;and cannot produce collaborative witnesses.

In fact ,the NY Slimes investigated the Ramirez claim and decide there was not enough corroboration to report it . Not that it stopped sleaze bags like

Ronnan Farrow from slandering him. The Slimes interviewed over 2 dozen people who were at the college party ;and none can recall the incident

What’s extraordinary is that Ramirez herself admits that she hesitated to come forward because there were such large gaps in her memory; and only came forward after a week of coaching from her lawyer .

Yet Senators are taking these charges seriously and giving them more weight than 6 different FBI back round checks Kavanaugh has had .Over 200 women encompassing his years from high school to the present have signed letters supporting him and his character .

Senator Feinstein should be brought up on ethics violations no matter the outcome . Her withholding the charge until the 11th hour was disgraceful. Knowing this ;Senator Grassley should end this charade Thursday and have his committee vote on the Kavanagh appointment ;and Yertle McConnell should fast track the full Senate vote and get it done in time for the start of the October SCOTUS session .

If you have a son, it should terrify you what Dems think should happen to him if he becomes so successful that the only way to tear him down is to just accuse him of the worst.

If you have a son, it should terrify you what Dems think should happen to him if he becomes so successful that the only way to tear him down is to just accuse him of the worst.
If you have a daughter, it should terrify you what Repubs think should happen to her if she.... (fill in the missing words).

You don't find it strange that the victims want the FBI to investigate, but the GOP and Kavanaugh don't? What should we expect from a dufus who brags about assaulting women and dismisses it as locker room talk yet gets elected, and supports his rich pals that have assaulted and harassed women for years. The good old boys always circle the wagons for their own and we all know its about the power.

The GOP has sunk to a new low not unlike the Clarence Thomas appointment. The sad part is that you have seen little boys raped by priests and nobody knew for many years if ever, but you don't give the girls the same benefit of believing them. You guys are sick!

I have a daughter and I fear nothing for her from conservative positions . And the preponderance of real evidence suggest that Kavanaugh has been nothing except an ideal example of a father .

Just remember the vengence of women knows no bounds

You don't find it strange that the victims want the FBI to investigate, but the GOP and Kavanaugh don't?
no not particularly . The FBI vetted him and none of this came up . The accusers cannot corroborate . Give a sliver of evidence for the charges besides drunken memories .

What should we expect from a dufus who brags about assaulting women and dismisses it as locker room talk yet gets elected, and supports his rich pals that have assaulted and harassed women for years.
What you think of Trump is irrelevant . Where is the proof of these slanders against Kavanaugh ?


The GOP has sunk to a new low not unlike the Clarence Thomas appointment.
That is a valid comparison since Thomas was slandered with no evidence except from the words of the accuser also .


The sad part is that you have seen little boys raped by priests and nobody knew for many years if ever, but you don't give the girls the same benefit of believing them. You guys are sick!
There is a preponderance of evidence against the predatory priests and the bishops that covered it up . You make me sick because you would destroy the reputation of a man for the single reason that he has different political positions than you and at all cost you think he should be not be seated in the court . Yours isn't the rule of a civilized society . Yours is the law of the jungle . In your system of justice the accused has to prove their innocence instead of the accuser proving guilt .
Christine Blasey Ford is a college professor . Yet
she doesn't really recall how she got to the party. She doesn't recall the house that the party was thrown in, and she doesn't recall how she got home from the party. She has a fuzzy memory about the people that were there at the time .The one other person named says he was not there ;and her account of the event and the notes her therapist took does not match . I'm sure the boys you speak of have a vivid memory and can recall every sordid detail of the assault against them. The Ramirez account ? Well she admits that she was drunk;provides no witness ;had to reflect with her lawyer to square her account .Even with that there are gaps . The collaboration provided was a 3rd hand account by someone who allegedly heard rumors about

the incident . Stormy Daniel's lawyer makes the highly improbable claim that Kavanaugh orchestrated gang rapes in high school . Don't you think it strange that after 30 years of public service and a series of FBI backround checks these stories never emerged until days AFTER the Senate Judiciary hearings ended ? Come on !You are not that naïve .

Where is the proof of these slanders against Kavanaugh ?
Proof, or the accumulation and preponderance of evidence? What about the entries in Kavanaugh's yearbook that refer to his sexual escapades, in particular the "FFFFFFFourth of July" entry?

There is no amount of lying that democrats will not engage in so that they might achieve their political ends. He says he was never at the party. No one else at the party has any recollection of his presence at the party. Several dozen women have come forward to speak of Kavanaugh's high character. But he must be guilty because, after all, there are some posts in a yearbook. Dear goodness. It's insanity.

I don't know what that means . Surely such debauchery would have plenty of witnesses who would've recalled these events when the FBI came a calling .

If his year book is fair game then why isn't Ms Ford's year book from Holton Arms Girls School ? That year book was scrubbed Sept 17 from the web when she came out with her charges . According to rumors I hear the facutly of the elitist school promoted an environment of binge drinking and promiscuity . Numerous passages in the book refer to drunken keggers .Photos in the yearbook illustrate examples of minors drinking heavily ;beer cans piled up on the floor .I have seen the alleged pages from someone on the web who anticipated the scrubbing and took a number of screen shots . Beyond that I have no proof it is true. But hey evidently accusations need no proof .

I don't know what that means . Surely such debauchery would have plenty of witnesses who would've recalled these events when the FBI came a calling .
Haven't you seen and read all the recollections and quotes from Kavanaugh's former classmates? And read the excerpts from Mark Judge's books?

and did you read Michael Judge's rebuttal of his brother's accounts ? Mark Judge spends some time in his fictional memoirs trashing the memory of his father . However Judge has vehemently denied Kavanaugh ever acting the way he is charged ;and Kavanaugh is not directly implicated in any of Judge’s writings. So how does that become a 'preponderance of evidence'? Not even close . In fact the only thing that comes close to implicating Kavanaugh of any mischief in his book is his accounting of a 'Bart O'Kavanaugh' puking in a car.

Of course a loving brother would rebut! Kavanaugh's former classmates corroborate -- even elaborate and explain.

What is it that after years of staying silent someone feels the need to ruin the career of a person considered upright in the community, where was this person when Kavanaugh was being confirmed as judge. What we have here is a politicisation of the process, after all who's early years can stand absolute scruitiny and if this is a false accusation then the redress should be to destroy the person making the claim

What is it that after years of staying silent someone feels the need to ruin the career of a person considered upright in the community, where was this person when Kavanaugh was being confirmed as judge. What we have here is a politicisation of the process, after all who's early years can stand absolute scruitiny and if this is a false accusation then the redress should be to destroy the person making the claim.

Pretty well sums it up. It might be different if there was credible direct evidence to back up the claims of these two women, but instead there is just nothing.

Prof. Ford passed a polygraph, and went through therapy for nothing? That was before Kavanaugh was even considered for SCOTUS. Why would she put herself and her family through this hell for nothing? Why hasn't Kavanaugh called on the FBI, or someone to clear his name? What is he and the GOP afraid of? I'm not so sure the country as a whole is that sold on Kavanaugh, and rightfully so since the GOP foisted the Dufus on us and we know about his women problems that he denies.

Yes. That always proves guilt. "I went through therapy, your honor, and I passed a lie detector test." That will get you nowhere in court if that's all you have. In fact, you won't even get to court. No witnesses. 35 years have gone by. Can't even remember what house this supposedly occurred in. But even if the allegation is true, are we really going to disqualify a man for doing something stupid in high school? If we are going to use that standard, then we won't have many people in the federal government. The FBI can't clear his name. What do you think they are going to do, to investigate and then come out and say this woman is lying? It doesn't work that way. It is up to the accuser to prove his guilt, and she is a million miles away from doing that.

This isn't a court of law, it's a job interview for the highest court job in the land for life. Maybe dude was a party animal and a drunk and did a lot of stupid stuff back in the day, but you cannot ignore he may have traumatized a few people along the way with bad behavior, even if he can't remember or even cares. He denies everything.

For sure his main sponsor and supporter has no moral compass he follows nor does his GOP advise and consent crew ever shown any inkling of gender sympathy, or have shown a lick of ever having one. Looks like a bully job by old entitled white guys to me... and most people.

Maybe that's the REAL problem here as the Dufus led GOP appears to be the party of rich white guys who don't want to be scrutinized or held accountable and are entitled to the rewards that their power can bring them and they won't share it even with their own women. Maybe this is a partisan smear job in reaction to a partisan cover up and power grab.

ITS ON!

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/166/16633/1663395.jpg

No impartial arbiters here!

"Prove to me my accusations about you are false........."

. . "Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first–verdict afterward."
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

I would rather stick to the modern stuff,

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-avenatti-says-new-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-will-come-forward-before-thursday/



Avenatti says that he has a client who knew Kavanaugh in high school and accused him of setting up girls to be raped. "When the American people hear from her, they will determine, as I have, that she is to be believed," Avenatti said during a press conference Monday evening. Kavanaugh called that claim outrageous...
But his yearbook page repeatedly referenced drinking and in a statement, his former Yale roommate reportedly described Kavanaugh as "a notably heavy drinker" who "became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk." The former Yale roommate James Roche admits he "did not observe" Ramirez's account firsthand but that he believes her.

My question would be to him "What are the things you regret and made you CRINGE as a teen Mr. Kavanaugh?"... (Besides being a drunk virgin.).

What a question. If the requirement to be a SCOTUS judge is to have never had a regrettable moment in your teen years, then I imagine there won't be any judges seated.

When you say that the republican party is the party of "rich white men", in what way aren't you lowering yourself to the level of casting racial stereotypes? It sounds the same as, "I mean after all, you knoowwww how all those rich white guys are. They're all the same." One might hope we could get past that. But perhaps you had a different meaning in mind??

Prof. Ford passed a polygraph, and went through therapy for nothing? That was before Kavanaugh was even considered for SCOTUS. Why would she put herself and her family through this hell for nothing? not true . She went through therapy and designed her game plan in 2012 when there was a possibility that Romney would win and be able to appoint Kavanaugh. Why she would do this is speculation except that she has been a Democrat activist for years .


Why hasn't Kavanaugh called on the FBI, or someone to clear his name? What is he and the GOP afraid of? Why should he . He has passed FBI back round checks a number of times . Why should he give any weight to the allegations ? He will make his statement and his case to the Senate and the American people in testimony this week .

This is what we do know . Ford made accusations that Kavanaugh denies . The 3 people she mentions as " witnesses" are Mark Judge ;Patrick Smyth and Leland Keyser, All three deny attending the party .

Ramirez account is admittedly fuzzy due to the fact that she was drinking . 2 classmates "witness" say they heard of the incident but cannot confirm it was Kavanaugh .

Sixty-five women who said they knew Kavanaugh in high school have signed a letter emphasizing their perceptions of his integrity and decency. Over 200 women overall knowing him through high school ,college and his years in public service have vouched for his character . There is no further investigation necessary .

Sixty-five women who said they knew Kavanaugh in high school have signed a letter emphasizing their perceptions of his integrity and decency. Over 200 women overall knowing him through high school ,college and his years in public service have vouched for his character . There is no further investigation necessary .

You would think that would be overwhelming to anyone. If it is not, then I would wonder if that person has any real interest in justice.

You guys don't mind if we don't just take your word for what an upstanding guy Kavanaugh is and vet him a bit closer than you did do you? Of course you mind since he is the hand picked choice of the right wing and the Dufus. That alone begs for a closer look.

Heck, we could have been done with this if the dufus and Shriveled up Chucky G would have started a week ago. With a further IMPARTIAL look into the latest allegations. The only reason I can see for not having the FBI dig deeper into it is you guys are hiding something.

Maybe that's the REAL problem here as the Dufus led GOP appears to be the party of rich white guys who don't want to be scrutinized or held accountable and are entitled to the rewards that their power can bring them and they won't share it even with their own women. Maybe this is a partisan smear job in reaction to a partisan cover up and power grab.
I totally agree, Tal. Inside Kavanaugh is still that teenage guy who has no respect for females, as evidenced by what he wants to do to them when (if....) he becomes a Supreme.

It's not OUR fault WG, the repubs don't have any women senators on the judicial committee, and are looking for a woman to do their dirty work of smearing the female who came forward in an open televised hearing. Make no mistake our side chomps at the bit to have at Kavanaugh AGAIN!

Wonder who the next woman to come out will be to smear the GOP virgin golden boy's sterling reputation (When he wasn't incoherently DRUNK that is)? Be careful or you may piss off Kellyanne.

I totally agree, Tal. Inside Kavanaugh is still that teenage guy who has no respect for females, as evidenced by what he wants to do to them when (if....) he becomes a Supreme

What amazing insight, that you would know so much about someone you have never even met, and about whom you know very little. 200 former high school and college classmates have stated he is a man of genuine character, but you actually believe that you somehow have the ability to make a judgement from such a distance.

It's not OUR fault WG, the repubs don't have any women senators on the judicial committee,

Yeah. They should have sterling characters like Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein. I would be embarrassed to have two senators like them. Now if we could get Margaret Thatcher on board, then that would be wonderful.

What amazing insight, that you would know so much about someone you have never even met, and about whom you know very little. 200 former high school and college classmates have stated he is a man of genuine character, but you actually believe that you somehow have the ability to make a judgement from such a distance.

I gave up putting people on pedestals a long time ago and you should be aware that many a hero has fallen from the ranks of mighty by how they have conducted themselves with women over the years that was covered up and unknown to the public. Ailes, O'Reilly, Weinstein, congressmen, and newscasters AND America's favorite dad Bill Cosby who got sentenced Monday.

They all had their fan clubs too until they didn't. Just a word of caution my friend. Neither of us knows the true Kavanaugh, just what we have been told, and for that consider the source. LOL, because he didn't assault the women that knew him in HS, keep in mind they didn't go to school with him.

They all had their fan clubs too until they didn't. Just a word of caution my friend. Neither of us knows the true Kavanaugh, just what we have been told, and for that consider the source.

That's fair enough. You might want to tell that to WG. She is the one who has found him guilty even before the trial.


because he didn't assault the women that knew him in HS, keep in mind they didn't go to school with him. Not sure what you mean by that. They DID go to school with him. Read below:

Not to be left out of the moment, over 100 of Kavanaugh’s high school classmates at Georgetown Preparatory School sent a letter to the White House in support of him. The office of the Press Secretary forwarded it along to Senate leadership (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/heres-the-letter-brett-kavanaughs-high-school-classmates-sent-to-the-senate-calling-for-his-confirmation).After describing his high school and college accomplishments, the letter lists, “Brett’s defining characteristics were his sharp intellectual ability, affable nature, and a practical and fair approach devoid of partisan purpose.”
“These were the same traits that made him stand out at Georgetown Prep, and distinguished him on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,” the letter continues. “He is a devoted son, husband, father and friend and despite his great achievements, he remains the same grounded and approachable person that we met in High School.”
“Whether it is his long history of accomplishments in public service, volunteering at local civic organizations, serving meals to the less fortunate, or coaching our kids’ basketball teams, Brett has remained a ‘man for others’ through his actions and not mere words. He has consistently demonstrated his dedication to the premise that the pursuit of helping people, and not a political objective, fulfills the promise of human 2 potential and governmental purpose. This, we respectfully suggest, should be the touchstone of the inquiry that you must now conduct.”

I was alluding to females and not specifically his fellow rich classmates since in every example of bad or predatory behavior the subjects have all kinds of support. That seems to be the biggest factor of how these dark sides get buried from the public eye. They have enablers like all of us drunks do.

That's fair enough. You might want to tell that to WG. She is the one who has found him guilty even before the trial.
I attended a coed CHRISTIAN college and know what my male schoolmates bragged about (and how they were able to avoid house parents and their rules). I can only imagine the stories the students at an ALL-MALE (no female classmates) prep school could tell....

Yes. They are rich so, of course, they are corrupt. Good grief. At any rate, would 65 women be enough for you? 65 women defend Kavanaugh as 'a good person' amid allegations | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/14/65-women-defend-kavanaugh-as-good-person-amid-allegations.html)


I attended a coed CHRISTIAN college and know what my male schoolmates bragged about (and how they were able to avoid house parents and their rules). I can only imagine the stories the students at an ALL-MALE (no female classmates) prep school could tell....

Oh yes. I see now why you are so able to make these long range judgments since, after all, you can imagine things. "Senator, we have a witness here to testify of what she has imagined." How far would that get you? Granted, it would fit right in with the so called evidence shown against Kavanaugh. Young men sometimes do bad things, so we can just agree to that assumption, but that is about a million miles away from making Kavanaugh guilty. Women have been known to lie, so does that automatically make Dr. Ford a liar?

If you want to think that Kavanaugh is guilty, then go for it, but the truth is this: You nor I know much beyond what the news media has been feeding us. It's Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill all over again, except that Hill at least had some small shred of evidence. Ford has zero. She can't even remember how she got to the party, how she got home, or whose home it was in. So we're going to go on that???

but the truth is this: You nor I know much beyond what the news media has been feeding us.
...including Fox. But then there are yearbook entries, quotes from people who knew him back then, Mark Judge's books, etc.

But then there are yearbook entries, quotes from people who knew him back then, Mark Judge's books, etc

The yearbook entries prove nothing in connection with Ford's accusation, and when you look at quotes from people who knew him, they are overwhelmingly in his favor. Dozens and dozens and dozens of them supporting Kavanaugh. People willing to sign their name to letters supporting him. It just seems to me that the primary reason she has so much support is her gender. That and a strictly political motivation regarding his nomination. Those are pretty sorry reasons for ruining a man's reputation.

That and a strictly political motivation regarding his nomination ... sorry reasons for ruining a man's reputation.
I certainly don't want to return to the mentality of the '50s.

Yes. They are rich so, of course, they are corrupt. Good grief. At any rate, would 65 women be enough for you? 65 women defend Kavanaugh as 'a good person' amid allegations | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/14/65-women-defend-kavanaugh-as-good-person-amid-allegations.html)

You could find millions that didn't know the dark side of the people I mentioned above, so that dog don't hunt and to be clear I never equated being rich with being corrupt, but ones circle and social networks are more than willing to espouse the positive and overlook the negatives. If nobody but a few people know you are a zip darn fool when drunk, then we get what we got. POSSIBILITIES of the things we don't know.

I mean if the guy ever admitted he drank like a fish then wouldn't he be more credible than say he never drank like a fish, despite friends KNOWING he did? Naw man he has shown he would say anything to be confirmed and repubs will do anything to confirm him, and YEP dems will do anything to stop him and that's where we are at.

Response to WG

Oh yes. I see now why you are so able to make these long range judgments since, after all, you can imagine things. "Senator, we have a witness here to testify of what she has imagined." How far would that get you? Granted, it would fit right in with the so called evidence shown against Kavanaugh. Young men sometimes do bad things, so we can just agree to that assumption, but that is about a million miles away from making Kavanaugh guilty. Women have been known to lie, so does that automatically make Dr. Ford a liar?

If you want to think that Kavanaugh is guilty, then go for it, but the truth is this: You nor I know much beyond what the news media has been feeding us. It's Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill all over again, except that Hill at least had some small shred of evidence. Ford has zero. She can't even remember how she got to the party, how she got home, or whose home it was in. So we're going to go on that???

That's exactly why we should slow down and look deeper for more facts beyond what we have in the media. Maybe Avenatti will have more in a few days. I'm sure you would hate to have some bad stuff come out after Kavanaugh has been seated on the high court. Maybe Dr. Ford will have more at her hearing.

I believed Anita Hill back in the day. Still do. Check out this article which is pretty typical of survivors of traumatic events.

Why did Christine Blasey Ford wait so long? I'll tell you ... | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/20/why-did-christine-blasey-ford-wait-so-long-ill-tell.html)

So its very inaccurate to say Ford has zero. To millions of women, (AND MEN) she has a VERY credible story. Nothing to do with party affiliation.

There was much more evidence that Obama lied about Benghazi, but you don't accept that. As I have said before, it all comes down to this. In the lives of many, many people, it all comes down to politics. It's not about justice. If it comes down to justice, then you have to say that the evidence that Kavanaugh committed this act is nearly non existent. It would never have seen the light of day in a court. We all know that there will be no civil or criminal case against Kavanaugh after this is over. Why? The evidence is not there, pure and simple. In fact, I greatly hope that Kavanaugh brings a civil case against both of these women for libel. I think he will win.

You guys have the votes so do what you do, since obviously your minds are made up and have been for a long time, so do what you do best.

You guys have the votes so do what you do, since obviously your minds are made up and have been for a long time, so do what you do best.

Like I said. It all comes down to justice, right and wrong... evidence, or lack thereof.

Naw this isn't about justice its about the healings of trauma victims. That's why they are there standing up to their victimizer. Justice requires the function of courts and the lawful presenting of evidence. This is a job interview and the applicant has credibility problems and questions on that credibility have been raised and need to be addressed. I don't know how fair this is when repubs have no time to investigate or bring witnesses to verify or dispute those issues but I can certainly see where excluding any and all facts and witness is in their interest, but even repubs have to see that fair this ain't, nor obviously is it intended to be.

LOL do you really think this sham hearing will make the accusers go away? Naw, they will be all over the networks talking about judge Kavanaugh, or Justice Kavanaugh. Which ever the case may be. I don't mind which poison you guys pick, and maybe that's the justice you speak of. Watching you guys explain how great the Kool Aid is. Or that its rain getting your heads all wet.

There was actually plenty of time three months ago. It was Diane Finestein that elected to wait until the hearings were practically completed before bringing all of this up. That's what makes it clearly a political stunt. I don't know what Kavanaugh did when he was 17, but I DO know what Bill Clinton did when he was in the White House. I don't recall hearing liberals weeping and wringing their hands about that, and pouring out their hearts about "the healings of trauma victims". No, then it was an avalanche of poison directed at Lewinsky who, thankfully for her, had held on to her evidence. Where was your weeping and heartfelt emotions then? So it's all about politics after all, and nothing about justice, either for Kavanaugh or Ford. It's just an opportunity for otherwise indifferent liberals to parade their phony concerns for women.

Republicans have no time to bring witnesses? What witnesses? There are none. They have bent over backwards to accommodate this accuser, but she has no witnesses. What would they present? A yearbook page, or a book, neither of which have any direct bearing on the accusation? It seems the dems have seized on this because they have nothing else to go with. They have behaved shamefully. Cory Booker sits there with a straight face asking questions when he is the one person in the room who is admittedly guilty of groping a girl in his teen years. All those democrats who say they are concerned about women's rights,why haven't they addressed that, or the Keith Ellison issue? What a noble bunch. It makes me glad beyond belief that I am not a liberal democrat. Repubs have their own sets of problems to be sure. As it says in Romans, "There are none righteous, no not one," and politics is frequently a dirty business. But when democrats attack a man who, from all accounts, has led an honorable life, then that is going too far. Is it possible he did something stupid in his teen years? Of course it is, and the lady might be telling the truth for all I know, so we'll just have to see what happens on Thursday. It is just unfortunate that this is being turned into a political circus. Barring the unexpected, if the republicans don't have the courage to approve Kavanaugh, then they will be as cowardly as the democrats.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F166%2F16636%2F1663683.jpg&t=1537970914&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1cbf-c8000001ab00&sig=0qwenCkHT0FkTh3hEAX2PQ--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/garymarkstein/s-2128573?ezine=641)

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2F166%2F16636%2F1663672.gif&t=1537970914&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1cbf-c8000001ab00&sig=0o8uVoVicKiIVwfG89QBTA--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/claybennett/s-2128550?ezine=641)

Typical democrat propaganda. On the first one, if Dr. Ford does not get enough time, it will be on her since she is the one who largely set the parameters for the interview. For the second one, the evidence for the accusation is so weak that I wouldn't think he would need an alibi.

imagine that ;he was a ring leader of a drug and gang rape cult in high school and no one knew about it for 30 years ! This nerd kept a personal calendar for over 30 years . His accusers can't remember when where and how . The most we have found out about him is that he was possibly an underage drinker . That would disqualify about 95% of my class.

On that basis you would ignore the allegations that are vehemently denied to push this fellow to the highest court of the land?

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F166%2F16626%2F1662654.jpg&t=1537981646&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1cd2-bf0004015a00&sig=Q1TnOci1QDdVEJ7mX34zQg--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/jeffdanziger/s-2127178?ezine=640&r=qDQMiNxSpTyJo01bX5u0notbpXYLa36_HMYn_KLBj9VDOjUx MDM2OTA1Oko6MTc5MTE3OTpMOjY0MDpSOjI5ODA5NzpTOjIxMj cxNzg6VjozNg)
What's telling is not only the GOP's reluctance to slowdown and seriously investigate fully these claims, but the accusers willingness to testify under penalty of the consequences of law. So just a fair process it seems would put this to rest and clear your choir boy of all these allegations. That's clearly not what is being done here, neither by the boy scout or his pack leader the dufus. He said many times he wants a fair process, so let's take him at his word and look for the truth in a fair open way.

For that to happen there has to be a fair and unbiased seeker of truth to elevate this from the smears that both sides are engaged in. We can't have that until the GOP slows down from this effort to have a VOTE before the FACTS can be found.

I say this as the 3rd accuser comes forth, ready and willing to submit herself to FBI investigation under penalty of law.

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/avenatti-identifies-third-kavanaugh-accuser-claims-kavanaugh-tried-to-spike-girls-drinks

show me the evidence . Kavanaugh's nomination is a political process . The "fair process" is to have the opportunity to testify and be questioned by the members of the Judiciary Committee even though these are 11th and a half hour revelations withheld by Senators who's only interest is in delaying the process .

If they have charges against Kavanaugh they should make them formally to the law enforcement agencies .You know and I know that this is an act of desperation to stall the confirmation until after the midterms .It is one of the most transparent hail Mary passes I've ever seen. I have yet to see a smidgeon of credibility to any of it .


BTW ;when did you stop beating your wife ? heard rumors you did 30 years ago . I'm wrong ? Prove me wrong.

So according to Julie Swetnick’s accusation we’re supposed to believe that a gang of serial rapists were terrorizing young women at house parties and not only did no one ever report it but she KEPT GOING TO THE PARTIES? Oh and the FBI missed this on 6 background checks?

we’re supposed to believe that a gang of serial rapists were terrorizing young women at house parties and not only did no one ever report it but she KEPT GOING TO THE PARTIES?
I've heard similar stories from people who went to party schools. Fraternities are where the best-looking and ofttimes wealthiest guys live. Alcohol removes inhibitions. And young women don't consider the consequences, too often think, "[It] won't happen to me."

actually she was an adult going repeatedly to high school parties . and she kept on going according to her tale until she was raped .

Obviously the FBI never went back far enough, and OBVIOUSLY NEVER talked to his Yale roomie Mr. Roche. Even now reports are emerging that some of those females who endorsed him before are admitting they didn't know him but figured he was a good guy given his breeding and school affiliation.

Listening to you guys though always talking about his past vetting, seems a very simple and easy matter to have the FBI interveiw these accusers and put this crap to bed. So why not just do that to move on and call the left wing bluff? Why hasn't the Dufus moved to put this to bed with a SIMPLE and QUICK investigation and end the he said, she said?

Why is that so hard for you guys? The prez is having a news conference right now which would be better characterized as a filibuster session.

actually she was an adult going repeatedly to high school parties . and she kept on going according to her tale until she was raped .
Let's talk about those parties and the time period (and what partygoers -- of what age -- usually did at them). Then let's talk about how much older the "adult" Julie Swetnick was and why she attended.

I did not attend parties in high school . But I attended many parties in the mid-70s in college. I do not recall ever seeing or hearing about gang rapes happening at those parties. She not only allegedly witnessed them (as an college adult going to high school parties) but she also claims to be a victim of them even after knowing the risk she was taking. Presumably there were many people attending and yet she can only identify 2 people .
She contends “numerous boys” were involved in multiple acts of sexual assault. Yet not one victim of gang rape from parties that she says
“occurred nearly every weekend during the school year.” ever reported the assault to the police.
Not a single victim or witness ever told parents, teachers friends who may happened to report them , or any other responsible adult.
There is no statute of limitations in Maryland for sex crimes ;so why has she not filed charges in 35 years . Which friend did she attend these parties with ? Are they willing to give an account ? What you mean she just showed up at these parties and left by herself ? What was she doing ;writing a college thesis about the social habits of wild high schoolers ?




Now Swetnick has had presumably multiple FBI backround checks from her positions at Treasury ,Mint ,IRS .She also claims to have had security clearance with State ,DHS ,Justice ,Customs and Border Protection . Yet none of either her or Kavanaugh's backround checks uncovered illegal drug spiked booze ,gang rape parties they attended in their school days .

Hmm why did she go to sleazy porn lawyer Avenatti ? Wasn't Gloria Allred available ? Wasn't Saul Goodman ? https://www.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/watch-better-call-saul-online.png (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjs-M-O8tndAhXmRt8KHcb0DVAQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unilad.co.uk%2Ftv%2Fbetter-call-saul-season-four-will-feature-very-important-character-from-breaking-bad%2F&psig=AOvVaw3OkhGHaqiOAXdKoHOpsFDM&ust=1538093233016915)

Btw, Julie Swetnick, the "adult" who attended ten (??) parties, is only about a year and a half older than Kavanaugh.


not one victim of gang rape from parties that she says “occurred nearly every weekend during the school year.” ever reported the assault to the police. Not a single victim or witness ever told parents, teachers friends who may happened to report them , or any other responsible adult.
Very few women report such happenings, especially back then. The blowback against them would be as shaming as the incident -- and just as longlasting in its social and emotional effects.

nope Kavanaugh was born 1965 .She was born 1962 . That makes it more like 2-3 years older .She was an adult age college student attending underage high school parties.

So you think it is probable that they held parties every weekend where girls were gang raped and no one reported the incidents to any authority ? btw where did these parties occure ? These were high school kids . They did not own their own homes . Some parent or parents let them have boozy parties every weekend in their houses ? Her's is the weakest story of all the Kavanaugh "victims" . I don't think Ronan Farrow would even run with this story.

btw ;Swetnick was involved in a dispute with her former employer, New York Life Insurance Co., over a sexual harassment complaint she filed. Representing her in the complaint was the firm run by Debra Katz, the lawyer currently representing Ford. My what a small world !

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/26/elizabeth-rasor-mark-judges-former-girlfriend-will/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation


Mr. Judge (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mark-judge/)
was, according to Christine Blasey Ford, the other boy in the room who tried to assault her at an underage drinking party.
Ms. Rasor (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/elizabeth-rasor/)
has no knowledge of that incident, according to the Post, but is willing to corroborate an account in the New Yorker that
Mr. Judge (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mark-judge/)
conspired to get women sufficiently drunk enough to “consent” to group sex.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/24/deborah-ramirez-second-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-sho/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/senate-probing-new-allegation-misconduct-against-kavanaugh-n913581

Oh Boy this is getting rather messy. Go ahead Tom find a way to dismiss the latest accusers. It's only Wednesday.

"I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process," "You've tried hard. You've given it your all... You may defeat me in the final vote but you'll never get me to quit. Never."

"I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process," "You've tried hard. You've given it your all... You may defeat me in the final vote but you'll never get me to quit. Never."


Did you hear that dufus? Yo boy is fightin' just like you told him to. Nice evasion of the question about was he open to the FBI investigating the new allegations, Good job by McGann prepping him last week. I don't expect him to quit, but Dr. Ford was entirely credible. I have to tell you that Michael Judge would be the one to be called.

Repubs sure made a lot about dismissing an FBI report, but this circus started with Kavanaugh and his snarky interruptions of questions by senators. It was a sad sham show as predicted, except for the Ford testimony.

I believe her fully.

BTW ;when did you stop beating your wife ? heard rumors you did 30 years ago . I'm wrong ? Prove me wrong.


Perfect illustration, especially when you add that the four people who supposedly told you the rumors all claim they don't even know you.

Why wouldn't the repubs say, "OK. We'll do the FBI thing. One week only and only on the two even semi-believable accusers (the third one about gang rape is nutty). Come back in a week, no real evidence, dems look stupid (as usual), vote Kavanaugh in. Game over.

Must add that Kavanaugh was masterful dodging questions by filibustering about himself.


Why wouldn't the repubs say, "OK. We'll do the FBI thing. One week only and only on the two even semi-believable accusers (the third one about gang rape is nutty). Come back in a week, no real evidence, dems look stupid (as usual), vote Kavanaugh in. Game over.

My understand is that senate repub staffers investigated the new allegations not the FBI.

Must add that Kavanaugh was masterful dodging questions by filibustering about himself.
Dodging, sidetracking, not responding but instead echoing the question back to the questioner. And the facial expressions.... One of my friends said she would love to play poker with him, so many tells.

Bet his daughters will be forbidden to go to frat parties or date guys from all-male schools.

Maybe he was doing his best to model his nominator who did the same thing the day before. Filibustering the questions and referring to himself with plenty of snark, and disdain mocking everyone.

the perfect stall . make unsubstantiated accusations with no corraborative witness and ask the accused to call for an FBI investigation to prove the accusation wrong.

Senator Spartacus had his finest moment . He uncovered the truth that Kavanaugh had a beer after a football game .

the perfect stall . make unsubstantiated accusations with no corraborative witness and ask the accused to call for an FBI investigation to prove the accusation wrong.

I guess it is a stall since you guys are in a hurry, but a statement by the POTENTIAL corroborative witness signed by his lawyer, NOT HIM, bears a closer look but of course repubs can't have that can they. Instead we get the big distraction from why the FBI cannot look into the new allegations, yet repub staffers can. That doesn't pass the smell test, so you guys are still holding your nose about anything the dufus does and following his every wish.



Senator Spartacus had his finest moment . He uncovered the truth that Kavanaugh had a beer after a football game .

You believe Kavanaugh had a beer after the game? Probably had a case before and during.

the perfect stall . make unsubstantiated accusations with no corraborative witness and ask the accused to call for an FBI investigation to prove the accusation wrong.

It's even worse than that. Make unsubstantiated accusations which are actually contradicted by four of your primary witnesses. How much plainer can it get?

They weren't allowed to call ANY corroborative witnesses remember. Though she couldn't remember a lot of things she remembers her attacker, Judge, and the way they laughed when the exited the room to join the others. She named the people there. They may have not been in the room but we could ask a lot of questions if repubs weren't trying to rush this through to please their dufus.

JL, no doubt you were holding your nose extra hard through Dr. Fords testimony. Especially the many times he declined to answer the question of dems about the FBI clearing his name. An innocent man would want his name cleared. Kind of obvious the GOP is not that confident he would be cleared by closer scrutiny.

They weren't allowed to call ANY corroborative witnesses remember.

Who'd you have in mind??


JL, no doubt you were holding your nose extra hard through Dr. Fords testimony. Especially the many times he declined to answer the question of dems about the FBI clearing his name.

Dr. Ford is a "he"? I guess you meant Kavanaugh. As was explained about ten times, the FBI does not clear names or draw conclusions. They only provide witness interrogation reports.

By the way, when will the hearing for Cory Booker's admitted groping of a girl in high school be held? Or the hearing for Finestein's staff releasing Dr. Ford's name to public?

I know what the FBI does. They investigate and report FACTS so others charged with making decisions from those facts can do their job effectively. So lets get after it starting with Mark Judge whom Dr. Ford puts in the room. That's as logical and reasonable as it gets. Just from the testimony of Ford and Kavanaugh's journal we have a better timeline, possible dates, and a place to start looking for some relevant details. What are you guys so afraid of? Depending on Senate staffers for FACTS is a ludicrous notion by any measure of reason or logic.

It's logical and reasonable as new things come to light to have the due diligence of professional scrutiny.

If you want to investigate the leaks of Ford's letter GO AHEAD. You want to investigate Ellison, Go ahead. You want to investigate the dufus. GO AHEAD! If one cannot stand the spotlight of scrutiny, then they should get a different job.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh-aba/bar-association-asks-judiciary-committee-to-delay-kavanaugh-vote-media-idUSKCN1M80Z1

https://www.businessinsider.com/american-bar-association-brett-kavanaugh-delay-vote-fbi-should-investigate-2018-9


"Each appointment to our nation's Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote," Carlson added. "Deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court." News of the ABA's letter, which was addressed to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California — both of whom sit on the Judiciary Committee — comes hours after Kavanaugh testified on Capitol Hill before the committee Thursday. During his testimony, Kavanaugh touted his "unanimous, well-qualified rating" from the ABA.

QUESTIONS?

Well time to convene another star chamber

so who can tell me how many questions the Dems asked Kavanaugh about the allegations by Dr Ford ?

Doesn't matter, repubs have the majority so they call the shots. The dufus said confirm his pick so what else matters?

No one mentioned that the drinking age in Maryland in July 1982 was changed from 18 to 21. On Feb. 12, 1982, Kavanaugh had turned 17 and was underage even under the old law of age 18.

yeah he was an underage drinker . clearly that disqualifies . The answer to my question is ZERO . Not one question about the incident was asked by the Dems . They had a lot to say about the FBI and year books and farts . But nothing about the allegations .

Still waiting on Tal to tell us which corroborating witnesses he wanted called. Might be a hard question to answer since there are none. Even Leland Keyser has contradicted Ford's statement. So who would they have called?

yeah he was an underage drinker . clearly that disqualifies . The answer to my question is ZERO . Not one question about the incident was asked by the Dems . They had a lot to say about the FBI and year books and farts . But nothing about the allegations .

I wouldn't disqualify him for underaged drinking, Don't all youngsters do that? I did at 12, but just would certainly look into the credible claim of sexual assault raised by Dr. Ford. I never thought he was a choir boy in the first place and that's not the only question I have about this butt kisser either.

Spare me the rest of your posts since repubs didn't have the courage to question Dr. Ford themselves, nor allow the hand picked female prosecutor to question the judge.


Still waiting on Tal to tell us which corroborating witnesses he wanted called. Might be a hard question to answer since there are none. Even Leland Keyser has contradicted Ford's statement. So who would they have called?

You must have missed my post about Mark Judge being a person of particular interest, and I'll hold my peace on the rest for now until we get more than an attorney statement. They are meaning less without direct testimony.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/yale-law-school-dean-kavanaugh-investigation_us_5bae51d8e4b0425e3c233aeb



Gerken echoed the ABA, which on Thursday urged the committee to delay (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/american-bar-association-brett-kavanaugh_us_5bada932e4b09d41eba011c7) a confirmation vote on Kavanaugh.

“We make this request because of the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law,” it said in a letter to the committee. “The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI.”



The resistance for yo' boy mounts.

If Mark Judge is the best you can come up with, then your cause is lost. He has completely contradicted Ford's account.

Kavanaugh's nomination has passed and will be presented to the full senate for vote... supposedly after a FBI investigation on the allegations. Flake is a no vote until then! You go Jeff.

win win . If the Kavanaugh nomination gets derailed next up
Amy Coney Barrett. Wait until you get a load of her !

If the Kavanaugh nomination gets derailed, it will be a travesty. It will set up a scenario where corrupt democrats are able to drag up unsubstantiated allegations from decades ago to intimidate qualified candidates. That will be terrible. It will not be a win at all.

as Lindsey Graham said today . The politics of the day is what goes around comes around . If Kavanaugh is unacceptable ,Barrett will make their heads explode .

time to move the goal posts again .....
Debra S. Katz,Dr Ford's lawyer, on FBI probe: "No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation."

I think conservatives need maps to the Senate elevators. Evidently that is where Senate confirmations are decided these days . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bshgOZ8QQxU

If the Kavanaugh nomination gets derailed, it will be a travesty. It will set up a scenario where corrupt democrats are able to drag up unsubstantiated allegations from decades ago to intimidate qualified candidates. That will be terrible. It will not be a win at all.

Says a lot you can totally disregard Dr. Ford or others like her so easily for a well heeled entitled frat boy. Let your nose go and breathe...you have a whole list of wingers standing in line don't you?


as Lindsey Graham said today . The politics of the day is what goes around comes around . If Kavanaugh is unacceptable ,Barrett will make their heads explode .

time to move the goal posts again .....
Debra S. Katz,Dr Ford's lawyer, on FBI probe: "No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation."


Graham wants Sessions job, soon to be vacated, and you guys started this with Merritt Garland, so don't be so high horse. LOL, you thought you were going to just roll over Ford, and get the frat boy in lickety split? Obviously she ain't done but the frat boy might be.

Says a lot you can totally disregard Dr. Ford or others like her so easily for a well heeled entitled frat boy.

"a well heeled entitled frat boy"

Amazing how prejudiced you can be. The guy has worked hard and studied hard, but he belonged to a fraternity, so he must be dirty. Wow.

As to Dr. Ford, she has no evidence. Listen carefully, n-o-e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

"a well heeled entitled frat boy"

Amazing how prejudiced you can be. The guy has worked hard and studied hard, but he belonged to a fraternity, so he must be dirty. Wow.

As to Dr. Ford, she has no evidence. Listen carefully, n-o-e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

I didn't call him dirty. You know me, if that's what I wanted to say I would have but since you brought it up he is accused of sexual assault, and for the record, she named another guy as a witness. You may need torn clothes bruises and semen, but few victims do.

To be fair he may be found more than dirty after the investigation, but a word of caution, would your daughter need evidence if she was assaulted by a drunk with another one watched? Or would you say where's the evidence? You listen very carefully my friend, THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WOMEN DON'T COME FORWARD!

And according to you it should stay that way!

Perhaps some day you will be accused of a sexual assault that, it is said, happened more than thirty years ago. There will be no evidence at all, other than the famous "another guy" who is unnamed and is, at any rate, not thought to have witnessed anything. The accusers memory will range from detailed to vague to nonexistent. There will be good reason to suspect that there is an ulterior motive to the accusation, and the accuser will be financed by people who despise you. Still, you will be guilty. Why? Because that's your standard of justice. So I would encourage you to listen carefully as well. A person in this country is thought to be innocent until a certain standard of evidence has been met. You might not like that, but I for one am thrilled to have such a standard.

Truth is, it sure appears that you want him to be guilty because of political considerations. God help us all if that version of politics becomes dominant.


"a well heeled entitled frat boy" So what did you mean by that? It was plainly not a compliment

So what did you mean by that? It was plainly not a compliment
How would you describe him, jl?

However I would describe him, it would not be by the use of offensive group affiliations. I would hope I would evaluate him as an individual, which is what I would hope for anyone.

However I would describe him, it would not be by the use of offensive group affiliations. I would hope I would evaluate him as an individual, which is what I would hope for anyone.
Again I ask, how would you describe him?

OK. Based on what I have seen, he is intelligent, accomplished, caring, and seems to inspire loyalty. His professional life seems to have been sterling.

OK. Based on what I have seen, he is intelligent, accomplished, caring, and seems to inspire loyalty. His professional life seems to have been sterling.


It's his private life that is in question, not his professional life.

Based on credible witnesses, he is a mean, nasty drunk prone to abusing women. These witnesses will be interviewed by the FBI this weekend and next week. The allegations include sexual misconduct.

Based on his testimony before the Senate, Kavanaugh is quick to anger lacking the necessary judicial temperament, shows a marked inability to answer questions directly, and arrogantly responds to senators who are questioning him. These are all strong indicators he sees himself as superior to others - not a good characteristic for someone wanting to be a justice on the highest court in the land.

His near meltdown at the hearing on Thursday revealed much about Kavanaugh including what poker players refer to as "tells".

Truth is, it sure appears that you want him to be guilty because of political considerations. God help us all if that version of politics becomes dominant.

Hello j:

Well, Republicans did STEAL the seat, after all.. Why should the Dems let them get away with it?

They should deflect, derail, deny, dispense, and do ANYTHING they can to keep the seat OPEN until the midterms.. Then HOLD the seat open for President Biden to choose.. I think Merick Garland might be available..

excon

Based on credible witnesses, he is a mean, nasty drunk prone to abusing women. These witnesses will be interviewed by the FBI this weekend and next week. The allegations include sexual misconduct.

Which witness said he was a mean, nasty drunk? Which witness said he was prone to abusing women? If you are trying to include Ramierez and the crazy woman who said he was a gang rapist (which no one with even half a brain believes), then you have to drop the adjective "credible".

Democrat strategy. Get a letter alleging sexual abuse, hold onto it privately, tell no one, give the woman legal advice, have the woman come forward at the eleventh hour, ignore the fact that her witnesses do no support her story, ignore the fact that she mysteriously does not know key elements of her story, call for an FBI investigation 2 months after they found out about the story, and then act like moral heroes. If I was a democrat, I would hang my head in shame.

Truth is, the only thing Kavanaugh is guilty of is being a conservative. And we are seeing a clear demonstration that democrats will lie like a dog if they think it will be effective.


and do ANYTHING they can to keep the seat OPEN until the midterms. Well, you said it. "Do anything they can..." Lie, cheat, defame, destroy. You are getting your wish. Again, I'm glad I'm not a democrat. I hope the American people can see what low-life politicians the democrats have become. They have about as much character as a snail.

you guys started this with Merritt Garland,
The Biden Rule :

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581754/biden-senate-hearings-scotus-vacancy-election-year


Like i' said 'what goes around comes around'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-judicial-nominees-democrats-have-only-themselves-to-blame/2018/07/05/2225c65c-8067-11e8-b660-4d0f9f0351f1_story.html?utm_term=.71919c11f07c

The a lowlife move was denying Garland a fair process. Then you lowered the votes from 2/3 of the senate to a simple majority for SCOTUS appointees after you had the house, senate and white house. Now you can force anybody through and all can be done is delay, and obstruct, and if necessary destroy your nominees. So lets get off the dirty tricks we pull, until you can own your own, fair enough?

I get the clock is ticking, and you're afraid of losing the house, and senate, and politics is dirty and your well heeled frat boy was known as a political operative before he was a judge, which in my mind is not disqualifying in the least, unless there is a chance he may protect his benefactor if it comes to it. Chances are good it will sooner rather than later.

Now disrespecting and assaulting woman by a YOUNG country club, privileged HS'er, maybe while drunk, maybe not, may not be a big deal to you, but it is for sure with women, and REAL men who are honor bound and respect, and protect them. Or maybe you just have not seen enough of the carnage a drunk can cause in the lives of the ones closest to him, or have never experienced enough of carnage from an abusive drunk or sexual predators. You surely don't know while the body heals in time the mind does not, it takes much longer with much help and support, and if all you can say after the compelling story that Dr Ford shared with the nation is she has no evidence then you entirely miss the point of the bigger problem, so have no clue about what half the population faces because of that ignorance. Maybe it just that you have not had trauma at that level close to you, I don't know, but feel if you did maybe you would feel different, maybe not, and I could be wrong.

So maybe the FBI can do what repubs didn't want to do and that's shed lite on the events of July 1st, 1982, or there about. I don't know what will be revealed, but I do know that NO ONE would throw chaos and confusion and the attacks she has endured without it being important to do so for her. I reject the conspiracy and being paid to do so, a typical right wing tactic, seen often to rile themselves up against whatever target is the focus. Obviously works for you. SAD! The good news is her healing is greatly enhanced by standing up for herself effectively, something she couldn't do when she was 15 and pay attention and note how long it took to get where she is after decades of suffering. It's more common than you obviously acknowledge my friend, but as I said you haven't seen this dynamic closely.

Dr. ford also to be fair had advantages most women do not have and that's the interesting part for me because if such a well heeled privileged female could be victimized by such a traumatic event, what would it be for someone without privilege, resources, and support systems to help her life? Man it's good to be a lot tougher to get that healing so badly needed.

I'm not trying to change your mind or put you down JL, just present another view, because I think it better to see a bigger picture than a self serving agenda. I mean do you really want a judge on SCOTUS who hasn't learned or acknowledged his own shortcomings? How can he deal with yours or OURS? I know he looks good on paper, impressive in many aspects, but I would want to see the whole book before I jumped on that bandwagon. Just something to consider.

Well heeled frat boy is anybody who is raised in privilege with the inside track to the country club life.

raised in privilege with the inside track to the country club life.

I hope you realize that your quote is a description of Dr. Ford. She belonged to a country club and attended an elite, private all-girls school. So using your logic, she is bound to be lying.


Then you lowered the votes from 2/3 of the senate to a simple majority for SCOTUS appointees after you had the house, senate and white house.

You failed to mention that this was another step in a process started by Harry Reid and the dems in 2013. It was said then that it would eventually come back and bite them in the rear end, and so it has.


I mean do you really want a judge on SCOTUS who hasn't learned or acknowledged his own shortcomings?

This is the part of this whole debate I despise the most. Make an unsubstantiated, probably false (my opinion) accusation that has been flatly contradicted by four witnesses named by the accuser, but then draw the incredible conclusion that because the accuser is a woman, then surely she must be telling the truth. Then you can say he won't acknowledge his shortcomings. What a sick process this has become, to destroy a man's credibility on such non-existent evidence. There are still those of us who value justice and believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. So no, I won't join you in smearing the name of a good man who's character has been supported by the statements of literally hundreds of people.

And please don't start the false narrative of suggesting that because I'm not going to go along with this injustice, that I am somehow anti-female. I have no respect for any man that would treat a woman disrespectfully, but neither will I just throw a man to the wolves with no evidence to support that action. And this is being done by people who, when they had the opportunity to support a woman who really was taken advantage of, slandered, libeled, and treated like a slut, they passed on that chance to come forward and support Monica Lewinsky. Instead, they fell in line behind a man who was PROVEN to be a man who lied about her and treated her in the most shameful and disrespectful manner possible. Tell me why I shouldn't conclude that the democrats have now turned out to be the biggest collection of hypocrites on the planet, especially with Cory Booker, an admitted sex offender, seated on the committee and asking questions of Kavanaugh.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2F166%2F16646%2F1664673.gif&t=1538236526&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1ccf-ae001b013c00&sig=fJu5HzfAhAFe27eU_Dcl1w--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/darrinbell/s-2129853?ezine=641)


One fact that was missing from your narrative (And the rest of right wingdom) was as we all were watching the questions of Ms. Mitchell for Kavanaugh, about the date in his book that included the names Dr Ford had given as being present. Why was she shutdown from continuing her line of questions by the repubs who hired her in the first place?

This is my second assertion of the importance of that so your thoughts please.

What is there to explain? His calendar notes he went to "Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie and Squi." I'd be willing to bet it meant that... he went to Timmy's to drink some beer with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie, and Squi. No mention of girls being there. No mention of trying to make it with a girl. So what are you looking for? And if it was such a big deal, then why didn't any of the dems question him about it?

In the meantime, Dr. Ford says she became upset and left the party. She was miles from home, so how did she get home? That would have been a problem as she had no car. She can't remember how she solved that problem? That's a difficulty for me. I find it hard to believe. Now she might be telling the truth, but I have no way of knowing that. I will not simply assume she is being honest since she is female.

I know. I don't just automatically believe her in order to make a political point, so I must be anti-female.

That is what the investigation is about but that wasn't the question.
Why was she shutdown from continuing her line of questions by the repubs who hired her in the first place?

I don't expect you to know what you don't have experience in. I get that few do. Most humans are irrational and unaware after traumatic events. Accident victims, soldiers, but if you have been around addicts and alcoholics then you would also know what they have gone through also, and the lengths they go through to get what they want, and what they are capable of. Kavanaugh's buddy wrote a few books on his experiences that may be relevant and revealing.

That was the question for me, was Kavanaugh capable of such a thing and the answer was a decisive YES. That repubs didn't want a deeper PROFESSIONAL look into the allegations was highly suspicious, and the blatant lie that his friends said he didn't do it when actually they didn't KNOW of it was enough to look deeper, yet it was repeated and still is. Too many questions to sweep under the rug about this guy for me, but if his background check into the allegations comes back clean I'm sure you guys will vote him in so what's the problem?

Still would like an opinion on the above question.

Why was she shutdown from continuing her line of questions by the repubs who hired her in the first place?

Answer: The general answer is that she did such a poor job of questioning Dr. Ford that there was little use in allowing her to continue, not to mention that it was time for someone to come to Kavanaugh's support as the dems had done with Dr. Ford. The specific situatioun you raised was because there was nothing there, as I pointed out earlier. But even if there was, why didn't the democrats pursue it? So that's my question to you, now that I have answered yours. Why didn't the democrats pursue it if there was something to it, as you say? Why did they never come back to it? Are they really, in your view, that stupid as to let something like that go unaddressed if it was, as you suggest, incriminating?


That was the question for me, was Kavanaugh capable of such a thing and the answer was a decisive YES.
I've got some news for you. Most of us, in our teen years, were capable of a great many terrible things. I imagine you were, and I know I was. If not for the saving power of Christ, I would be who knows where right now. But because we were capable of evil did not mean we did it. That is excruciatingly poor reasoning with which to find a man guilty. If that makes him guilty, then what does it make you, or make me?

As I've said a dozen times, it's all about politics. The dems are perfectly willing to destroy a man and impugn his character just in order to make political points. That's the really sickening thing about this. And they are using Dr. Ford, against her original wishes, to try and do that. Shameful.


but if you have been around addicts and alcoholics
Let me remind you that I have been working with addicts for 10 years now.

But because we were capable of evil did not mean we did it. That is excruciatingly poor reasoning with which to find a man guilty.
Why are the men who are now coming forward to accuse priests (men of God!) of sexual abuse 30+ years ago believed? And the priests are deemed guilty.

Why are the men who are now coming forward to accuse priests (men of God!) of sexual abuse 30+ years ago believed? And the priests are deemed guilty.

They are not always believed, but when they are, I think it is because there are several credible accusers who remember the details well. You don't have that in this situation. Might add that there is no potential political profit to be found in those accusations as there is here, so the motive is not open to suspicion.

They are not always believed, but when they are, I think it is because there are several credible accusers who remember the details well. You don't have that in this situation. Might add that there is no potential political profit to be found in those accusations as there is here, so the motive is not open to suspicion.
Credible accusers "who remember the details well"???? The accusers of priests are young teens or preteens, and the sexual abuse happened many years ago. And the young men are going up against (homosexual?) priests in the Catholic Church, so yes, to many, the motive IS open to suspicion.

Whose motive? The young boys?

Whatever your meaning, it all still comes down to evidence. Evidence is the driver in our country. No matter if it's grown men or boys accusing a priest of crimes from years ago, or grown women accusing a judge of crimes from years ago. There must be evidence. In the case of Dr. Ford, the evidence certainly seems to point to her story being untrue. Four witnesses which she named, including a close friend, all say they do not remember what she says happening. Grown women by the dozens and dozens saying Kavanaugh has always behaved honorably towards them. Sorry. I know you want to believe Dr. Ford, but the evidence just doesn't point in that direction.

evidence
The grown boys have evidence against the abusive priests? As for Kavanaugh, apparently you aren't keeping up with the news.

predictably the Dems are already undermining the FBI investigation they demanded calling it not enough and not credible .

The grown boys have evidence against the abusive priests?

Uhm... that's kind of how the law works. No evidence... no case.


As for Kavanaugh, apparently you aren't keeping up with the news.

Not sure what you are talking about. If you mean the FBI investigation, then that has the potential to be explosive for both sides. If the FBI completes an investigation and finds nothing more than what is presently known, then the dems will look like idiots and Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

Of course I'm sure the democrats will then get right on top of taking care of the Cory Booker and Keith Ellison cases. Because, you know, they really, really believe in protecting and supporting women.

Wait! You forgot to mention Hillary!

Go Fund Me has now raised over 700 thousand dollars for Dr. Ford. Hmmm. Doesn't have to pay any attorneys fees either. Hmmm again. Now do I think she did this for the money? No, not really, but it is a little strange.

Well of course people do it for the money, there will be the book and later the movie rights. This is opportunism. Just remember people cannot be convicted of their thoughts and capabilities just their actions

Read this on the news this morning about accuser#3, Julie Swetnick. You can't make this stuff up. Especially interesting is the part about her making false allegations against co-workers. Not saying she was guilty, but remember that we are now in the age where simply making the accusation is sufficient to prove the case. Who needs evidence??

"Allegations laid out against her in the lawsuit include engaging in unwelcome sexually offensive conduct and making false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her.The suit claimed Swetnick engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo with two male employees at a business lunch with clients present and that she claimed two other co-workers sexually harassed her.
Webtrends, a web analytics company, determined Swetnick acted inappropriately but could not prove the allegations against her co-workers.
“Based on its investigations, Webtrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating evidence existed to support Swetnick’s allegations against her coworkers,” the complaint said."

And she is the "credible witness" that Athos referred to?


Based on credible witnesses, he is a mean, nasty drunk prone to abusing women. These witnesses will be interviewed by the FBI this weekend and next week.

She is but one of 3.. with more on the way, dude, but what do you care about the millions of assault victims with NO evidence? What's your advice to them that have none? What should THEY do? Maybe Dr. Ford has no evidence, now or then, and all she can do is report it. What should be done after it's reported?

And why don't girls and women report sexual assault after it has happened? The high majority of us have endured various levels of abuse and/or assault. Sometimes it's by males whose names we don't know and never see again. And if we know the name(s) and we first report it to a parent or, when we're older, a spouse, guess what we're too often told: "It's over and done with, so forget about it" or "Talking about this publicly will bring shame on our family" or "What did you do to make him come after you?"

She is but one of 3.. with more on the way, dude, but what do you care about the millions of assault victims with NO evidence? What's your advice to them that have none? What should THEY do? Maybe Dr. Ford has no evidence, now or then, and all she can do is report it. What should be done after it's reported?

OK dude, you missed the point about credibility. None of the three has a credible story. Sorry, but that's just how it is. The evidence and witnesses do not support their stories. Simply being female does not make a person credible.

As to what should be done, well according to you, the answer is to send several thousand potentially innocent men to jail. No evidence required. Honestly, it would be poetic justice if you turned out to be one of those innocent men in jail. Should it ever happen, just be content to know that you have contributed to the cause of political correctness.


And why don't girls and women report sexual assault after it has happened? The high majority of us have endured various levels of abuse and/or assault. Sometimes it's by males whose names we don't know and never see again. And if we know the name(s) and we first report it to a parent or, when we're older, a spouse, guess what we're too often told: "It's over and done with, so forget about it" or "Talking about this publicly will bring shame on our family" or "What did you do to make him come after you?"

That is certainly a legitimate point, but it did not happen in the case of Dr. Ford. She never reported it to anyone who then told her to just forget it. In fact, she never reported it period until about 30 years later.

I know you two care nothing about justice. Your approach is, "A woman made the accusation, so it just has to be true. The evidence be hanged." And, of course, you can use this to take down a potential conservative voice on the Supreme Court. Truthfully, that is what this is all about. This has nothing to do with justice for women. It is all political. No one amongst the senate democrats cares one cent about Dr. Ford. She is just a pawn in their game of politics. If Kavanaugh was a left winger, we would not be having this conversation. Want proof? Look at Bill Clinton, Cory Booker, and Keith Ellison. What libs have called for justice for their victims? If you said "no one", you got it right. On this thread, it is up to me to bring up their names. You two never mention them because, I think, you don't care about them. It's all sickening to me, the blatant hypocrisy of people trying to act like the champions of women's rights.

I know you two care nothing about justice.
I have two brothers, a (male) husband, gave birth to two sons, and would want justice done if any of them were ever accused of sexual assault or abuse. And by justice, I mean that every attempt would be made to discover the facts and that the abuser/assaulter, even if it's my relative, be punished for his crime.


If Kavanaugh was a left winger, we would not be having this conversation
Yes, we would. Actually, I'm a registered Republican who votes for the person, no matter his political label, who I think will do the best job.


You two never mention them because, I think, you don't care about them.
But they aren't the point of this discussion.

But they aren't the point of this discussion.

Actually, Booker is very much a part of the Kavanaugh discussion since he is a senator who was asking questions and has admitted to groping a girl in high school. No, I think you guys don't mention him because there is no political profit to be had in it.

So you would be content if a husband/son of yours was convicted in the court of public opinion on the basis of the testimony of one woman whose own story is contradicted by the testimony of her four witnesses? If so, then we just live in different worlds. If not, then why aren't you at least open to the possibility that Kavanaugh is possibly, maybe even likely, innocent?

I know you love pontificating and blithering on and misquoting, misreading, or just plan missing something but it's a simple question "
what do you care about the millions of assault victims with NO evidence? What's your advice to them that have none? What should THEY do? Maybe Dr. Ford has no evidence, now or then, and all she can do is report it. What should be done after it's reported? " I made no assumptions, just said it bears a closer look. A lack of evidence has nothing to do with credibility, though you make it sound like it. You are denying the whole problem. Women never get assaulted unless they can prove it? No wonder they are easy prey for predators and drunks, and lunatics.

Simply being female does not make a person credible.

But being a man does? Obviously since repubs wanted NO investigation.



Actually, Booker is very much a part of the Kavanaugh discussion since he is a senator who was asking questions and has admitted to groping a girl in high school. No, I think you guys don't mention him because there is no political profit to be had in it.

So you would be content if a husband/son of yours was convicted in the court of public opinion on the basis of the testimony of one woman whose own story is contradicted by the testimony of her four witnesses? If so, then we just live in different worlds. If not, then why aren't you at least open to the possibility that Kavanaugh is possibly, maybe even likely, innocent?

You have reality and BS all mixed up. You never even rechecked your lie about 4 people contradicting Fords story. Okay show me where THEY said it didn't happen.

You have reality and BS all mixed up. You never even rechecked your lie about 4 people contradicting Fords story. Okay show me where THEY said it didn't happen.

Here they are: PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, Kavanaugh, and Leland Ingham Keyser. Obviously you will discount Kavanaugh, but what of the other three named by Ford? Looks like the only nonsense here belongs to you. https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/blasey-fords-female-classmate-her-last-alleged-witness-denies-ever-attending-party-with-kavanaugh


what do you care about the millions of assault victims with NO evidence? What's your advice to them that have none? What should THEY do? Maybe Dr. Ford has no evidence, now or then, and all she can do is report it. What should be done after it's reported?

I would not suggest we use your strategy of convicting a man with virtually no evidence. Sadly, things happen everyday for which the guilty are not held responsible in this life, but there is another day coming at which the truth will be known. Beyond that, I don't know what to tell them. Natalie Holloway was plainly murdered several years ago. No one was ever brought to trial, and her body was never found. What a tragedy. What shall we do about, throw Tal in jail and say he did it? There are some incidents in life for which man has no answer. What's your advice?

Big difference between saying he didn't do it and I don't remember the party. Reality and BS! My advise is and has been investigate the allegations. Standard background checks only go back to year 18 unless there is a compelling reason and since she said nothing there is no record. I realize that sometimes all you can do is make a record and file it unresolved, but while you guys were railing what a great guy he was and how credible she was, but had no evidence or a clear memory, and attaching left wing conspiracies you stood fast that after 6 background checks another that went back a bit further wasn't needed, and you were ready to anoint him justice. Then for theater you hire a female to question her, and dismiss her after a question or two during BK's time in the barrel.

That alone didn't pass the smell test and looked RIGGED! I've known this guy for years as a political operative, and a choir boy he never was.

To be clear about this, I have sympathy for Dr. Ford. It would certainly seem that something traumatic happened in her past, and that she today is convinced that Judge Kavanaugh had something to do with. Let the FBI investigate? I'm all for it. Needs to be done with some speed since there aren't many witnesses to speak to, but that's fine with me. But as of today, there is no direct evidence that Kavanaugh was even at the party, much less guilty of what Dr. Ford alleges. I think I would tell her that I am completely willing to believe her story, but something needs to happen to help that process. There are too many forgotten but key details. The witnesses she named have contradicted her story of them being at the party or even, in one case, of knowing Kavanaugh. So even if my heart goes out to her, I'm also aware that I need to be just with Judge Kavanaugh and his family. There just seems to be a mountain of evidence to support his good character. Did he overly indulge alcohol as a young man? Seems likely, and in fact he admits that, but that is a million miles away from proving that he did what Dr. Ford alleges. Now in the minds of some of you that makes me uncaring and anti-female, but I remember the Duke Lacrosse case, the Tawana Brawley case, and a number of others where the lives of innocent men were violently impacted because of accusers who, it turned out, were lying, so I have to admit that it could be the case here. And, of course, Kavanaugh could be lying, but the evidence just does not point in that direction, at least not to me. You are welcome to your own opinion in that regard.

Big difference between saying he didn't do it and I don't remember the party. I never said they claimed he didn't do it. I did say they contradicted what she said, and that is true. She said they were at the party, but they claimed they were not, and her friend even stated she did not even know Kavanaugh.


Then for theater you hire a female to question her, and dismiss her after a question or two during BK's time in the barrel.

Not sure how the pronoun "you" applies here. I am not a republican and certainly not a senator. I can understand why they chose the lady to ask the questions. As for Kavanaugh, the dems could ask him any question they wanted to. I'm not too sure what they should have asked. "Did you do this? Were you at this party? Did you know Christina Blasey?" He's already answered those questions, so they came down to asking senseless questions about sophomoric entries in a yearbook, flatulence, and the shocking discovery that high school students drink beer to excess.

You haven't told us what you would tell a woman who had been sexually abused but had no evidence to prove it. What would you tell her? That's a wildly tragic and difficult situation.

You tell her you might be confused about who did what to whom

You tell him you find him guilty when the evidence points towards innocence.

That is certainly a female point of view, you are guilty because I say so

read it .... the report from the FEMALE prosecutor who questioned Dr Ford during the Senate Judiciary hearing .


http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/


“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”

Save your breath Tomder. If video tape surfaces showing someone else other than Kavanaugh following CBF up the stairs, there are still some on this board who will maintain Kavanaugh's guilt. They see Dr. Ford as representing all of the women who have been abused in this country with no justice ever served. I can see their point of view as to how tragic that is, but trying to make Kavanaugh pay for the collectives sins of others is not the answer.

I never said they claimed he didn't do it. I did say they contradicted what she said, and that is true. She said they were at the party, but they claimed they were not, and her friend even stated she did not even know Kavanaugh.

I don't think that was a contradiction, she never said they knew of the event she experienced, understandable reaction without an exact time and date, and typical if there was underage drinking was involved. All of which is inconclusive, and begs a closer look.



Not sure how the pronoun "you" applies here. I am not a republican and certainly not a senator. I can understand why they chose the lady to ask the questions. As for Kavanaugh, the dems could ask him any question they wanted to. I'm not too sure what they should have asked. "Did you do this? Were you at this party? Did you know Christina Blasey?" He's already answered those questions, so they came down to asking senseless questions about sophomoric entries in a yearbook, flatulence, and the shocking discovery that high school students drink beer to excess.

My apology for assuming you were a repub, and the pronoun YOU meant not you personally, but the collective views of repubs who speculate and assume without benefit of investigation into the allegations, that this fellow was qualified for SCOTUS, but I feel a lot was papered over or NOT revealed. An innocent man welcomes more scrutiny to clear his name in my view, but KGuy bring specifically catering to the votes he needs raised my suspicions but I KNEW him well before he donned his robes and worked as a politically connected operative know for his hard line and ambitions. Yes I have questioned his responses (CSpan covered the hearings), and history, and I make no bones over the dufus lying all the time about everything, and that makes me question everything he says and does. Now I understand what you want out of KGUY's appointment, likely you will get it... and anything else he brings besides what you want from him.



You haven't told us what you would tell a woman who had been sexually abused but had no evidence to prove it. What would you tell her? That's a wildly tragic and difficult situation.

Read below..


You tell her you might be confused about who did what to whom

How do you know she is confused? Just because you can't believe it, should that stop you from the due diligence of checking it out? Of course not. That requires a process of fact finding. Ask, listen and verify. You should NEVER tell a victim they are confused, you work through that confusion with them, without being dismissive, and I think she has been through and may still be going through that process. That also goes for the accused as to his own veracity, and that goes well beyond whatever image they are projecting. Finding truth is a process. A long one sometimes, years is not unusual.

"Trust but verify!'/Ronald Reagan

Save your breath Tomder. If video tape surfaces showing someone else other than Kavanaugh following CBF up the stairs, there are still some on this board who will maintain Kavanaugh's guilt. They see Dr. Ford as representing all of the women who have been abused in this country with no justice ever served. I can see their point of view as to how tragic that is, but trying to make Kavanaugh pay for the collectives sins of others is not the answer.

WRONG! While I respect the prosecutors legal assessment and totally agree with it, an allegation of wrongdoing does Not meet the legal requirements of prosecution. The court of public opinion is an entirely different matter, so we got our investigation all we ask is DUE DILIGENCE.

Trump says he is hands off, but is that the truth behind the scene by this WH? TRUST BUT VERIFY is my position. Do I have a doubt that if something dirty comes to light you guys would change your position? I seriously doubt it, even if there was a video of him doing what was alleged.

We'll see.

she never said they knew of the event she experienced,

She said they were there. They said they were not. Kaiser even said she never know JK. She also said Judge was in the room. He says he was not. Sure sounds like a contradiction to me. So if you really believe in "trust and verify", you just ran into a major roadblock on the verify side.

1. The three witnesses she named do not back her story.
2. She can't remember how she got there or got home.
3. She can't remember the date.
4. She can't remember the house.
5. She evidently did not tell anyone about it, including Leland Kaiser, who was at the time her best friend.

Now without pointing fingers at Dr. Ford and not casting aspersions on her character, there is just nothing there at all to support her story. And if you are JK, how can you establish an alibi when you don't know the time or location of the incident? You can't call a witness to testify about what did NOT happen, so she has a story that he has no way to defend himself against other than to say, "I did not do that." I just can't call that justice. I'm not going to brand a man a criminal on the flimsiest evidence possible.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brett-kavanaugh-was-aggressive-when-drunk-says-second-yale-classmate-charles-ludington-p5nvtk37z

Such revelations and allegations cannot go to a court of law at this point, so I guess our debate and the conflicts are a moot point here, but you are entitled to your logic as am I. I'm sure there is much we do not know at this time. I don't stop at my logic though and I hope you don't either.

The above link sort of goes along with Roche's assessment of BK's college reputation.
Do these accounts contradict his answers during his hearing? You tell me.

Such revelations and allegations cannot go to a court of law at this point, so I guess our debate and the conflicts are a moot point here, but you are entitled to your logic as am I. I'm sure there is much we do not know at this time. I don't stop at my logic though and I hope you don't either.

Sounds like a workable plan! Best wishes.

Very simple …..IF the charges against him prove to be true ,I'll be the first calling for his impeachment from the bench. But this stall game has to end this week . If the full Senate votes against him ..se la vie . Next up Amy Coney Barrett. We'll see what Dr Fraud has to say about her .

Tell me doesn't the Statute of Limitations kick in here somewhere, these events are somewhere in the distant past whatever the truth, how can they be introduced as any form of evidence? It seems to me the Senate should stop conducting a star chamber and stick to the task at hand, which is weighting the evidence that can be considered

Tell me doesn't the Statute of Limitations kick in here somewhere, these events are somewhere in the distant past whatever the truth, how can they be introduced as any form of evidence? It seems to me the Senate should stop conducting a star chamber and stick to the task at hand, which is weighting the evidence that can be considered.

I would agree with that. Even if the charges are true (and I don't think they are), how far back do we go into a person's life? A person does something stupid as a teen, so now they have to pay the rest of his/her life?

I am not sure ;but don't believe that Maryland has such a statute of limitations on sexual assault . However ultimately it is irrelevant because this is not a trial . The latest bit of charges involve the amt of drinking he did at Yale.
He did not deny drinking; he said he likes drinking beer; and he said he drank a lot on occasion. So it comes down to some guy's recollection and opinion of what is too much drinking in a college environment . It all comes down to what Vietnam stolen valor Blumenthal and Hire a Chinese spy Feinstein thinks.
Let's be honest here .
I get that it's useless to bring up hypocrisy . Cory Booker wrote an article describing how he groped and he is still a Senator . The same people who supported Clinton for 8 years ,and voted against impeachment when there was material evidence that he did similar or worse ,would now deny Kavanaugh . The same people who rubbed elbows and took donations from Harvey Weinstein knowing he was a sexual predator are sitting in judgement of Kavanaugh The fall back position on all of this will be nothing more specific than character . Kavanugh has a 30 year public record of service that has been investigated 6 times by the FBI ;and a who's who list of people who vouch for his character . 1 week and end this charade .

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/maryland-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

1 week and end this charade .

Absolutely. However, how much you want to bet that on Thursday, some "explosive" new detail will emerge that will, according to Cory Booker, warrant several more days of investigation.

Guys, there is one detail of Ford's story that I can't get away from. How did she get home? One would assume she would have come down from the bedroom quite upset. She had no car, and she lived some distance away, so someone had to drive her home. It is beyond amazing to me that she cannot remember how she got home. For that matter, why hasn't the person who drove her home come forward and identified him/herself? If PJ and Leland K were there, surely they would have remembered her emotional (you would think) search for a way home. That is such a mystery to me that I can't get past. And yes, I am not a woman so doubtless I can't relate, but that is still a curious feature of this story.

I got my eye on this guy Ludington from my previous link.

yeah I referenced Ludington in my last comment . "
So it comes down to some guy's recollection and opinion of what is too much drinking in a college environment ".

Rachel Mitchell brings up the issue of how she got home in her report to the Senate:


Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
o She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country
Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies,
and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
o She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere
that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
o Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and
subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she
did not look like she had been attacked.
o But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward
to identify him or herself as the driver.
o Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not
have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming
downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she
did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.

Speaking of Rachel Mitchell we will never have a report on her questioning of Kavanaugh because it was stopped by repubs during the inquiry about his July 1st calendar entry. A bit one sided if we are counting reports.

You keep bringing that up, but what prevented the democrats from asking those questions? Instead we got questions about flatulence, beer drinking, and FBI investigations.

I will remind you the only reason Mitchell was brought in was the phony posturing by the Dems about having all those old white males challenging her narrative and how hostile that would be . The Dems could've easily employed her services ;or brought in their own expert prosecutor to question him .Instead they concentrated on year book references to boofing of boffing ,ralphing ,and Devil's Triangle .

LOL. You blame the dems because repubs don't have a female on the committee? Have they ever? What year?

No, I blame the dems for not asking the kinds of questions you seem to think were so important. If you think those questions were so vital, then stop whining about it and call them up and complain.

Dems got an investigation into the allegations, but the repubs are still scheduling a vote before it's done, so the FIX is still in.

Fix. I like that word, as in, "Putting Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS will help 'fix' what is wrong with that Court."

Yeah I know, stop gay marriage and abortions, is your goal and you would hold your nose and elect a lying cheating dufus and support a lying drunk to get what you want. And if he protects the dufus against witch hunts so much the better.

time to move the goal posts again ...
Top Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein says Friday Senate vote on Kavanaugh would be too soon. Why ? maybe because he allegedly threw ice in 1985

time to move the goal posts again ...
Top Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein says Friday Senate vote on Kavanaugh would be too soon. Why ? maybe because he allegedly threw ice in 1985
If he's innocent, they can go for a year and nothing will be found.

3 days left . in that time we will find out that :
He watched a pg-13 movie when he was 12 ;
He rode a bicycle without a helmet once;
He recently used a plastic straw in CA.

I wonder what his backround check read like :

http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/139541_5_.jpg (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi5x6SczujdAhXjQ98KHeGsACAQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2F2012 %2F05%2F27%2Fthe_choom_gang_obama039s_pot-smoking_days_280927.html&psig=AOvVaw1V3_56xdBpSaDolB5dDLIo&ust=1538599041301405)

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-and-his-pot-smoking-choom-gang/

3 days left . in that time we will find out that :
He watched a pg-13 movie when he was 12 ;
He rode a bicycle without a helmet once;
He recently used a plastic straw in CA.
Or ... He was a schoolyard bully.
Every year his teachers commented on his terrible temper tantrums.
He over-emoted when cornered.

yeah that . He did not have coaching and like Dr Fraud he is not a trained
“psychologist.” So maybe he did not "emote "to everyone's liking . However confronted with such charges if they are not true , I probably would've had to be restrained . Like others of Irish decadency I tend to argue my case passionately ;ESPECIALLY if confronted with charges against my integrity and character .

by the way calling herself Dr is fraudulent . Professor Fraud is more appropriate .
https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/09/28/652538222/npr-doesnt-confer-dr-on-ph-d-s-here-s-why

Dr. Ford has two master's degrees and has a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Southern California. She can legally and ethically be addressed as Dr.

Please google this. Here are two sites:

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F063_Titles.htm

2. Rules for spoken language

[*=left]When someone has earned a Ph.D. degree he must subsequently be referred to as “Doctor” in formal speech. The same is true of a person who is a medical doctor, psychologist, dentist, veterinarian, osteophatic or naturopathic physician.
[*=left]When a holder of a Ph.D. makes a telephone call and is asked “Who is speaking?” or “Who is calling?” he should answer Dr. William Green.
[*=left]The same applies to any other type of presentation. When introduced to a new acquaintance by a common friend, the friend would say: “I would like you to meet Dr. Ernest Smith..." then, the holder of a Ph.D. should only say, "Ernest Smith at your service." Should the person introducing you leave out your title - “I would like you to meet my friend Ernest, it is appropriate to say amiably: “Dr. Ernest Smith at your service.”
[*=left]If you are introducing someone who holds a Ph.D. as a speaker before an audience, you must use his title: “I have the pleasure to introduce Dr. William Green, who will instruct us this evening on the fruit of his studies on such and such a topic.”


http://www.formsofaddress.info/Doctorate.htm (http://www.formsofaddress.info/Doctorate.html)l
1) Holders of doctorates who work in academia or research institutions are addressed as Dr. (Name) professionally and socially in a salutation or conversation.

NPR won't call her Doctor . good enough for me .

NPR won't call her Doctor . good enough for me .
NPR is in the minority. The staff probably scraped through high school.

and here I thought NPR was a progessive icon.

Typical angry white man rage that justifies denigrating the credibility and accomplishments of other for fear they are losing their dominant place at the top of the food chain. You have tried dismissed DR. Ford and attacked her credibility since she appeared and obviously repubs think they can still bully and shove the well heeled frat boy to higher prominence to further the right wing agenda.

You think no matter what you will have the cloture vote* Friday and the final vote very shortly after no matter what the investigation reveals. The blatant hypocrisy of Slick Mitch and his fellow prune faces from 2016 to this election makes it very evident that time is of the essence for them, and considering the soon to be very public legal woes of their fearless leader the PROVEN lying, cheating, dufus, I can understand the need for speed.

*Cloture Vote; a method of closing a debate and causing an immediate vote to be taken on the question. To close (a debate) by cloture.



(US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English): /ˈkloʊtʃər/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English),
[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-1)
UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_English): /ˈkloʊtjʊər/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English)),
[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-oxforddictionariesuk-2)closure[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-oz-3) or, informally, a guillotine[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-oz-3)is a motion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(parliamentary_procedure))or process in parliamentary procedure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure)
aimed at bringing debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate)to a quick end. The cloture procedure originated in the French National Assembly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_(France)), from which the name is taken. Cloture is French (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language)for "fence". It was introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom)by William Ewart Gladstone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ewart_Gladstone)to overcome the obstructionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstructionism)of the Irish Parliamentary Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Parliamentary_Party)and was made permanent in 1887. It was subsequently adopted by the United States Senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate)and other legislatures. The name cloture

remains in the United States;[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-oxforddictionariesuk-2) in Commonwealth countries it is usually closure[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-oxforddictionariesuk-2)or, informally, guillotine; in the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_Kingdom) closure and guillotine are distinct motions.
[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-ukparlclosure-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-allocationukparl-5)

yeah cloture works after the FBI report and a reasonable floor debate . Then invoke the Harry Reid nuclear option and end it . IF charges later prove to be true ,he can be impeached .

Bottom line on all of this is that 1 . No term limits to judicial appointments and Congress. 2. SCOTUS power grab from Marbury v Madison where they ruled themselves unequal powers of Judicial Review .
It was the first act of the Court “shaping” the Constitution to fit our needs as they see it .. It turned SCOTUS into the final arbiter of constitutional questions. And it really wasn't cited much until the 20th century .As an example ;Lincoln reused to enforce Dred Scott. Andrew Jackson openly defied a decision by Chief Justice Marshall. That is because throughout the 19th century there was an understanding that SCOTUS was an equal branch of government and not one wielding the power of 'final arbiter ' . The reason that SCOTUS appointments are so contentious is because of the unequal almost dictatorial power SCOTUS has over the country . The unelected ,appointed for life black robed oligarchs have way too much power .

You would still need 2/3rds of the senate to vote for impeachment and how likely is that? What's the hurry to seat the frat boy anyway? Oh that's right, the next congress may not have the same majority.

Typical angry white man rage

Yeah. You know how all those angry white men are. They're all the same, you know. And we don't believe in racial stereotyping around here.

I don't put you in that category JL, but I'm debating between holier than thou, and a bible thumper. Kind of hard when you go all reasonable and show empathy. 8D

Enjoy this

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F166%2F16656%2F1665653.jpg&t=1538526267&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c78-16000d014900&sig=GlvLSfQzS_YM6haIODlk9g--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/jeffdanziger/s-2131033?ezine=640&r=O2m2Jf731NxJByBjwLB-uvaNoiGq5-6xAghjRMprV6FDOjUxMDM2OTA1Oko6MTc5MzU5NDpMOjY0MDpS OjgxMDQ2NDpTOjIxMzEwMzM6Vjo1Mw)

Hello:

I was happy when I heard the FBI was gonna investigate.. I DIDN'T think the FBI was in anybody's pocket. Guess what?

Look.. Even if Kavanaugh withdraws or loses Trumps support, we're gonna get a dupe sans baggage.. The ONLY reason Trump picked Kavanaugh is because he doesn't believe a sitting president can be indicted.. I don't care about beer.. I care that he LIES about beer. I don't even care that he tried to get laid, even if clumsily.. I care that he LIED about trying to get laid.. Truth is, I'd be FINE with a justice who interprets the Constitution as written, cause I find it to be a very liberal document..

But, I care that he's gonna FORCE this orange lawbreaking abomination on us for the next two years..

IMPEACH..... IMPEACH..... IMPEACH..

excon

I don't care about beer.. I care that he LIES about beer. I don't even care that he tried to get laid, even if clumsily.. I care that he LIED about trying to get laid.. Truth is, I'd be FINE with a justice who interprets the Constitution as written, cause I find it to be a very liberal document..

How do you know he lied about beer? He said he drank beer, he said he liked beer, he said he drank to excess. So how would you KNOW he lied?

How do you KNOW he lied about the alleged assault? Because Dr. Ford says otherwise? It's your kind of thinking that the republicans are counting on.

As to the Constitution, where did the liberal justices find rights to abortion or gay marriage in the Constitution? No, a true constitutionalist would be a nightmare to liberals since they would no longer be able to legislate from the bench.

How do you know he lied about beer? He said he drank beer, he said he liked beer, he said he drank to excess. So how would you KNOW he lied?

He may not be lying, just doesn't remember doing things in his drunken stupor. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened, as any drunk can attest. I have seen and experienced this happened as to NOT believe what a drunk says, especially a young one. You have worked with drunks and addicts for 10 years JL, and I am sure you have the same position.

He lied about being nicknamed BART, even though he signed a letter to his BUDS using that name.




How do you KNOW he lied about the alleged assault? Because Dr. Ford says otherwise? It's your kind of thinking that the republicans are counting on.

It's plain STUPID that repubs take the word of an admitted hard drinking kid over a traumatized victim when we haven't heard from the other guy she names who has written books about drunken bad behavior when he was a kid and young adult, and BK's best bud.



As to the Constitution, where did the liberal justices find rights to abortion or gay marriage in the Constitution? No, a true constitutionalist would be a nightmare to liberals since they would no longer be able to legislate from the bench.

Where does it say churches can make abortion and gay rights illegal? Where does it say that churches can define the definition of marriage for everybody? Where does it say the states cannot make abortions legal, and redefine marriage for their populations sees fit?

Where does it say you can force your religious views on all men or women, or gays or any other citizen? I think the opposite is true to all those questions. You are free to state your opinions, but following your lead is voluntary. So is the right for your head to explode over somebody's right to pursuit their own happiness.

I think that's in the constitution somewhere, or is it the declaration of independence? Can't remember, as the coffee is still brewing, and I don't drink beer. To lazy to look it up or give you a link, so can you do it for me?

It's plain STUPID that repubs take the word of an admitted hard drinking kid over a traumatized victim when we haven't heard from the other guy she names who has written books about drunken bad behavior when he was a kid and young adult, and BK's best bud

No, being stupid would be to take the accuser's words at face value when the vast weight of evidence speaks against her.


Where does it say the states cannot make abortions legal, and redefine marriage for their populations sees fit?

You do realize that what you are describing was the situation as it existed BEFORE your beloved, law-writing liberal justices changed the law? If you are saying we should go back to that, then I'm with you.


Where does it say churches can make abortion and gay rights illegal? Where does it say that churches can define the definition of marriage for everybody?

No one is suggesting we put the church in charge, but neither does it say, however, that Christians must be silent and not engage in public debate. Besides, gay marriage is not a gay rights issue. It is about the necessarily selective and exclusive definition of marriage regarding what an individual state should legally recognize. It's why we don't allow a man to marry a dog, or three women to marry one man, or a man to marry a ten year old girl, or a woman to marry a tree. Marriage is an exclusively defined institution for a variety of good reasons.

BTW, have you noticed the evidence coming out that weighs AGAINST the credibility of your accusers?

It's plain STUPID that repubs take the word of an admitted hard drinking kid over a traumatized victim when we haven't heard from the other guy she names who has written books about drunken bad behavior when he was a kid and young adult, and BK's best bud


No, being stupid would be to take the accuser's words at face value when the vast weight of evidence speaks against her.

How interesting given you take the accused at face value, but Dr. Ford has stated she WANTS an FBI investigation, and KG, well he never said he did, he left it to the committee, and if not for Flake making his vote contingent on that investigation we wouldn't have one and Grassley said it wasn't needed. BK has played to the repubs and dissed the dems throughout his hearing culminating in his outrageous left conspiracy theories. I took them both at their word and called for an investigation through the whole thing though I opposed the frat boy, moreso after the hearings, I readily admit, but for me it's almost always TRUST, BUT VERIFY! How many times do I have to say that? I also think repubs are rigging the investigation, and that too may be VERIFIED. No I don't trust the PROVEN lying, cheating, dufus at all, and he calls the shots. I ain't STUPID.




Where does it say the states cannot make abortions legal, and redefine marriage for their populations sees fit?



You do realize that what you are describing was the situation as it existed BEFORE your beloved, law-writing liberal justices changed the law? If you are saying we should go back to that, then I'm with you.

And what law did they change? Abolishing slavery? Reafirming that woman can vote, black people can go to any school, woman can decide how to treat their own bodies? Please specify what you mean? I got time, and a listening ear.




Where does it say churches can make abortion and gay rights illegal? Where does it say that churches can define the definition of marriage for everybody?


Earth to Tal. No one is suggesting we put the church in charge, but neither does it say, however, that Christians must be silent and not engage in public debate. Besides, gay marriage is not a gay rights issue. It is about the necessarily selective and exclusive definition of marriage regarding what an individual state should legally recognize. It's why we don't allow a man to marry a dog, or three women to marry one man, or a man to marry a ten year old girl, or a woman to marry a tree. Marriage is an exclusively defined institution for a variety of good reasons.

BTW, have you noticed the evidence coming out that weighs AGAINST the credibility of your accusers?

It still is an exclusively defined institution...between two humans, as legislated in a growing number of states. Yeah you have a right as a citizen to engage in public debate, and states can legislate rules and laws according to their population, and states have done just that, legally and lawfully.

I won't comment on your claim of evidence against accusers since its only Wednesday, and going for my second cup of brew and breakfast. Wish you could join me.

Merrick Garland and Kavanaugh agreed 93% of the time in their court decisions. My question is what is going to happen when classmates of journalist expose their drinking ,partying and debauchery during their high school and college years ?

And what law did they change? Abolishing slavery? Reafirming that woman can vote, black people can go to any school, woman can decide how to treat their own bodies? Please specify what you mean? I got time, and a listening ear.

1. The Supreme Court did not abolish slavery, it affirmed it in the Dred Scott decision. A Constitutional amendment abolished slavery, which is how is should operate. Same thing is true of giving women the right to vote. Constitutional amendment, not a court decision, so you should get your facts straight.
2. While it is true that the SCOTUS decision in the Brown case did spell the beginning of the end for segragated schools, it had to overturn a previous SCOTUS decision to do it.
3. Women cannot choose how to treat their own bodies. A woman, in nearly every state, cannot freely engage in prostitution with her body. She cannot sell her body organs. She is not free to kill her body in suicide. She cannot put certain drugs into her body. Interestingly, the only real area of debate with a woman's body is her freedom to have her completely innocent, defenseless, unborn baby killed while still in her body. I'm thrilled beyond belief that I am not supporting that point of view.
4. The laws I am referring to that the Court changed was in the case of abortion and gay marriage, but you could also throw prayer in schools or removing the ten commandments into that box, practices which had existed for nearly two centuries but were suddenly and amazingly found to be unconstitutional by the Court when they plainly were not.


It still is an exclusively defined institution...between two humans, as legislated in a growing number of states.

It has nothing to do with state legislation. That is what you said you were for, and I agreed with you. SCOTUS imposed marriage between two men on EVERY state, thus denying states the option to "legislate rules and laws according to their population..." So it took away that right from states that you seem to favor, and in so doing diminished the exclusivity of marriage. If we decide two men can get married, then why not three men? Why not two women and one man? Why not two male cousins, or three male cousins, or a male and female cousin? After all, they should all have equal protection under the law, shouldn't they? So they have opened a Pandora's box with that brainless decision.

The laws I am referring to that the Court changed was in the case of abortion and gay marriage, You see you are not digging deeper into the hidden meanings . You are not divining the meanings of the penumbras, formed by emanations in the guaranteed rights.

https://theworddetective.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/humpty_dumpty.png

You see you are not digging deeper into the hidden meanings . You are not divining the meanings of the penumbras, formed by emanations in the guaranteed rights.

Now THAT'S funny! Yes indeed. One must have great wisdom says our great master, the Mighty Liberal! You nailed it, Tomder.

Merrick Garland and Kavanaugh agreed 93% of the time in their court decisions. My question is what is going to happen when classmates of journalist expose their drinking ,partying and debauchery during their high school and college years ?

They will avail themselves of the same process we all have won't they? Lets be very clear though, we are not talking about drinking, partying (Underage or NOT) or CONSENTUAL debauchery here are we. The allegation is sexual ASSAULT.

The allegation is sexual ASSAULT.

Yes, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is:

1. Someone has a credible accusation. That person is?????

Sometimes I think, and I realize this is not fair, but I still think that if there is any justice in this world, this same farce will happen to Tal, all in the spirit of what goes around, comes around. But like I said, I know that is foolishness. Still, the astonishing injustice of this affair, and the plainly political and hypocritical response of the democrats, is all just nauseating.


I won't comment on your claim of evidence against accusers since its only Wednesday, and going for my second cup of brew and breakfast. Wish you could join me.

That would be fun. I have a feeling that we would find a lot to agree on, but it might come after the neighbors have to call the cops on us! Sadly, I am limited to only one cup of coffee. Acid reflux. Bummer.

Now THAT'S funny! Yes indeed. One must have great wisdom says our great master, the Mighty Liberal! You nailed it, Tomder.

He quoted YOU, so he must be addressing YOU!



1. The Supreme Court did not abolish slavery, it affirmed it in the Dred Scott decision. A Constitutional amendment abolished slavery, which is how is should operate. Same thing is true of giving women the right to vote. Constitutional amendment, not a court decision, so you should get your facts straight.

I never said it did, I ask you to specify your meaning. Thanks for YOUR clarification, glad you know the nuance of law, and the history of the process. More on that later.


2. While it is true that the SCOTUS decision in the Brown case did spell the beginning of the end for segragated schools, it had to overturn a previous SCOTUS decision to do it.

Another way to CHANGE the law, in addition to a constitutional amendment.



3. Women cannot choose how to treat their own bodies. A woman, in nearly every state, cannot freely engage in prostitution with her body. She cannot sell her body organs. She is not free to kill her body in suicide. She cannot put certain drugs into her body. Interestingly, the only real area of debate with a woman's body is her freedom to have her completely innocent, defenseless, unborn baby killed while still in her body. I'm thrilled beyond belief that I am not supporting that point of view.

Does that include the safe and legal abortion procedures woman have at the gynecologist, paid for by insurance, which poorer people don't have? I'm not for abortions either, but it's a personal choice a woman should make.



4. The laws I am referring to that the Court changed was in the case of abortion and gay marriage, but you could also throw prayer in schools or removing the ten commandments into that box, practices which had existed for nearly two centuries but were suddenly and amazingly found to be unconstitutional by the Court when they plainly were not.

This was my question before, what law was changed to allow abortion and gay rights? Point being it was through lawful process of the law.








It has nothing to do with state legislation. That is what you said you were for, and I agreed with you. SCOTUS imposed marriage between two men on EVERY state, thus denying states the option to "legislate rules and laws according to their population..." So it took away that right from states that you seem to favor, and in so doing diminished the exclusivity of marriage. If we decide two men can get married, then why not three men? Why not two women and one man? Why not two male cousins, or three male cousins, or a male and female cousin? After all, they should all have equal protection under the law, shouldn't they? So they have opened a Pandora's box with that brainless decision.

Don't be silly, it's limited to two humans, and maybe those that want it expanded will follow that process, but that's another debate but I reject your what if and why stop there arguments since the law as is precludes them. While states have a sovereignty, our system gives federal government the higher sovereignty. One could argue that abolishing slavery was the Pandora's box, noting the violence and discriminations that went on for years and still does in some places and some ways.

Neither us is perfect or always correct, that's why we work on it. You think your conservative judges will take you back to the way it was with abortion and guy rights? Why would they not bring back slavery too? Judges can't make or enforce laws, but I bet the lawyers are lining up waiting for BK.

Yes, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is:

1. Someone has a credible accusation. That person is?????

Sometimes I think, and I realize this is not fair, but I still think that if there is any justice in this world, this same farce will happen to Tal, all in the spirit of what goes around, comes around. But like I said, I know that is foolishness. Still, the astonishing injustice of this affair, and the plainly political and hypocritical response of the democrats, is all just nauseating.



That would be fun. I have a feeling that we would find a lot to agree on, but it might come after the neighbors have to call the cops on us! Sadly, I am limited to only one cup of coffee. Acid reflux. Bummer.

I don't comment on evidence until a fair investigation has been done and where we differ is an allegation is probable cause to investigate. I have to leave it at that and hope like you justice will be served, and long suffering victims get closure. Being helpless and powerless is not a good place for any human to be. I don't feel like throwing rocks back at you at THIS time, and sorry about that acid reflux... been there done that.

I seldom talk politics over coffee and food. 8D and it's not worth violence over it either. You would't hit a guy with glasses would you?

You would't hit a guy with glasses would you? Ha! I wear them too, so we would both be safe.

You said you are not for abortions. Why are you not for them?

Well, Kavanaugh is done. Come to find out he threw ice at someone 35 years ago in a tavern. Wow. And he didn't go to jail for that? A major failure of justice for sure.

The decision of a Supreme Court nomination should never weigh this heavily on the lives of Americans. The founders would be appalled at the tremendous centralization of power and decision making that occurs in SCOTUS. The remedy is amendments that limit SCOTUS terms;and granting both to Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of 3/5 of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.


Most likely this will not happen through the traditional amendment proposals via Congress route . It will require an Article 5 convention. And while we are at it there should be an amendment that allows state legislatures to propose amendments if proposed by 2/3 of the legislatures .(We can add in term limits for Congress too.)

Ha! I wear them too, so we would both be safe.

You said you are not for abortions. Why are you not for them?

I'm a guy and a responsible one, but would never tell a female what she should do about being pregnant... and marriage is NOT an option. There are some very safe responsible options for responsible females to avoid pregnancy and making an early decision is one of them. Females of means will have that option and always have and no one is the wiser, not even husbands and boyfriends. One of my strong peeves against BK was his handling of a teen immigrant who was pregnant from rape, that he tried to block though she had permission and her own means. You may of heard of it.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/abortion/brett-kavanaughs-one-abortion-case

As a guy and citizen you should not make THAT lifechanging choice unless you are committed to the care and raising of that child to the age of adulthood (18), with or without the woman. I am against late term abortions though, which I define as past the 1st trimester. Right or wrong. I also believe any parent that doesn't educate their kids from a young age (Before public school, and age appropriately) in how to handle these things should be locked away for abuse.


Well, Kavanaugh is done. Come to find out he threw ice at someone 35 years ago in a tavern. Wow. And he didn't go to jail for that? A major failure of justice for sure.

Did you forget the sarcasm font?

The decision of a Supreme Court nomination should never weigh this heavily on the lives of Americans. The founders would be appalled at the tremendous centralization of power and decision making that occurs in SCOTUS. The remedy is amendments that limit SCOTUS terms;and granting both to Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of 3/5 of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.


Most likely this will not happen through the traditional amendment proposals via Congress route . It will require an Article 5 convention. And while we are at it there should be an amendment that allows state legislatures to propose amendments if proposed by 2/3 of the legislatures .(We can add in term limits for Congress too.)



Term limits YES for SCOTUS! I can see a lot of conflicts when we get to the rest of your fixes. I thought states could already propose amendment through a constitutional convention.

https://www.wikihow.com/Amend-the-Constitution



For an amendment to be proposed via a constitutional convention, two-thirds of the state legislatures must call for it. That convention proposes the amendment which is then sent to the states to be approved, and approval must be granted by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions among the states.[4] (https://www.wikihow.com/Amend-the-Constitution#_note-4)

yeah but I don't want to have a convention after the one necessary to get these changes. My way would propose amendments by the states without going the convention route. I want one now ;but I clearly see the risk of a potential runaway convention. That's really what happened the first time. All they were supposed to do is amend the Articles of Confederation .By the time they were done they createe a new government . I don't think it's likely ,but would prefer to have state legislatures still have the power to propose amendments without the need for a convention. You think the ones I suggested would be problems ? I did not evenmention states veto of laws Congress passes ;or balanced budget amendments . I really wanted to stick to the issue of rebalancing the government into 3 equal branches. So we'll have to wait for another discussion to repeal the 17th amendment ,or a constitutional requirement to sunset regulations subject to reauthorization . Or creating limits of government powers pertaining to the Commerce Clause.

Tom you are surely not saying the Constitution is flawed?

Repeal the 17th amendment? Put the senate in the hands of state party bosses and not in the hands of the people?

The Senate will get the results of the FBI investigation TONIGHT! Is the fix in by the white house?

I am against late term abortions though, which I define as past the 1st trimester.

Why are you against late term abortions?
When you say you are against them, do you mean they should not be legal?

It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing. Where you draw that line has always been a subject of great debate, as has assisting a human to die, or life giving procedures being withheld so one can die. For some the jury is out, for some it's not. Not unlike our topic, as there are just many varying opinions on this nomination and the process. I think we can agree on outcomes, but I have a real problem with how we arrive at those outcomes and if you want less abortions then information and the tools that make them unnecessry should be readily available. Closing down Planned Parenthood and the MANY services they provide to stop abortions is a bridge to far for me.

On the current subject senators are viewing the FBI report under a very strict process, with debate to follow. Then the voting starts. It's almost over.

Again, when you say you are against them, do you mean they should not be legal?

Why don't you start another question if debate is what you want on another subject JL?

As to the Constitution, where did the liberal justices find rights to abortion or gay marriage in the Constitution? No, a true constitutionalist would be a nightmare to liberals since they would no longer be able to legislate from the bench.

Hello again, j:

I'm not real smart.. What I love about the Constitution, is it was written for dummies like me. I frankly don't know HOW to interpret the words in the Constitution OTHER than what they actually MEAN in the English language.. So, while I don't know about activist liberal justices, I DO know how to speak the kings English..

Having said that, the 14th Amendment is clear.. 1) It says that if some citizens have a particular right, then ALL of the citizens have that right.. 2) There ARE rights that come along with marriage. Ergo, pursuant to the 14th, if SOME citizens have those rights, then ALL the citizens have those rights. 3) They also decided that the right to marry means you may marry the one you love - not the one the state requires you to marry..

I wonder.. If certain words have to be in the Constitution before laws can be made about them, I can't find the word "murder".. Given your argument, murder MUST be Constitutional..

excon

Here's a word for you this morning JL... SMEAR. Is it a smear against someone if it's TRUE? How would you know?

Why don't you start another question if debate is what you want on another subject JL?

Why are you hesitant to answer the question? You are the one who brought up the twin subjects of abortion and gay marriage.

Abortions or family planning are the right of individuals within common sense parameters, and the church has NO exclusive rights to define marriage by their own definition. Before you ask I have laid out MY common sense parameters to abortions, and the reasons where spelled out above.

You may not like my opinion, and that's okay with me.
Can we get back to the repub sham investigation, or you answer my question on smears?

lol sham investigation . The parameters of the investigation were exactly what the Democrats asked for before they started moving the goal posts . But turn out the lights Your smear job did not work .

So now Kavanaugh can join Ray Donovan in asking ;“Which office do I go to get my reputation back?”

I call it a sham Tom because everything the dufus has ever done has been a self serving con job to get fame, fortune, power, and all that good stuff he thinks he is entitled to. Why do you think this would be any different than all the other things he has done in his life?

His daddy taught him well.

Abortions or family planning are the right of individuals within common sense parameters, and the church has NO exclusive rights to define marriage by their own definition. Before you ask I have laid out MY common sense parameters to abortions, and the reasons where spelled out above.

It's a very simple question that you are plainly afraid to answer. You gave this less than clear statement on abortion ("It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing"), and now you don't want to say if abortions after three months should, or should not, be legal. I find this in many liberals. "I'm OK with abortion because I don't think the law should intrude on a woman's right to control her own body. However, I also believe the unborn "organism" becomes genuinely human at some point, and in that case abortion becomes unacceptable, but it'll be a cold day in hades before I do anything to protect that human life with the law. So I'm in favor of abortion unless, of course, I'm not." What a strange logic.

Cold day in Hades sums it up

It's a very simple question that you are plainly afraid to answer. You gave this less than clear statement on abortion ("It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing"), and now you don't want to say if abortions after three months should, or should not, be legal. I find this in many liberals. "I'm OK with abortion because I don't think the law should intrude on a woman's right to control her own body. However, I also believe the unborn "organism" becomes genuinely human at some point, and in that case abortion becomes unacceptable, but it'll be a cold day in hades before I do anything to protect that human life with the law. So I'm in favor of abortion unless, of course, I'm not." What a strange logic.

Only the small narrow mind can not see the nuances and depths of ones different views from their own even though I have spent many posts explaining that complexity. That's fine that you don't agree or understand as most holier than thou bible thumpers don't, as for them its so simple as liberals bad, conservatives good. No in between can be contemplated so no compromise can be gained.

Naw, I'm not ready to make illegal those who might stretch my tolerances, or criminalize them for the narrow view. You just keep it simple for yourself while I explore the possibilities. Unlike you I don't just dismiss you because I understand you, so if you don't mind if I don't just jump on your bandwagon and ride head long into your ideology or anything else, maybe the next time you holler your murdering babies you will also step up and raise those babies you say your saving.

Until then you're as dead beat as the natural father who walks away from that responsibility. Since you can hold your nose at the lying cheating dufus con man and his band of sycophants then you just keep holding that nose as I go about my own business in my own way. My responses might not be good enough for you, but that's not my problem.

We both know how our debates end... they never do! Probably never will. Let me know when your ready for the gay marriage thing.

It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing.

OK. So actually it's really not too late to turn back. Just wanted to know your view on the matter. At least you are honest enough to say it's alright to abort (kill) an unborn child at any point of the pregnancy, including the day prior to the day the child would be born. I'm not ready to sacrifice that child's life on the altar of political correctness.


Unlike you I don't just dismiss you because I understand you.

Wow you can be sensitive. I haven't dismissed you at all. I just wanted you to clarify your position on legalizing abortion, which you have done. I don't understand it. I would suggest you watch a video of an abortion at 3 months and then come back and tell us about it.

LOL, you quoted my words and still twist them. Was that to be provocative or are you really clueless?

I find it interesting that you would rather delve and decry my veiws on abortion rather than debate the new revelations in the Kavanaugh nomination process. Item one people are coming out of the woodwork ready to tell their stories and no FBI agents to tell it to or even be assessed as credible, and item two, as a contrast to his rave reveiws from HS classmates, the ABA and thousands of law professors around the country have come out against his nomination.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c6d6c2f336b8

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/kavanaughs-evasive-testimony-probably-wouldnt-have-been-allowed-his-own-courtroom/?utm_term=.f902f4169acb

And

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-than-1200-law-professors-oppose-kavanaugh-confirmation-in-letter-pence-to-step-up-criticism-of-china-in-speech-2018-10-04

yawn its over . the only thing that would've made the FBI investigation more thorough wouldve been had they did additional investigations on Dr Fraud's backround. Did you ever consider to ask why they were able to wrap it up in a couple days ? Because they had already investigated all the BS accusations .He was entrusted to carry the nuclear football when he worked for Bush . That doesnt just happen to anyone. That requires extensive vetting .

yawn its over . the only thing that would've made the FBI investigation more thorough wouldve been had they did additional investigations on Dr Fraud's backround. Did you ever consider to ask why they were able to wrap it up in a couple days ? Because they had already investigated all the BS accusations .He was entrusted to carry the nuclear football when he worked for Bush . That doesnt just happen to anyone. That requires extensive vetting .
So he lied back then too.

Only nine people were questioned this time. Not Kavanaugh or his former classmates and none of his accusers.

His judicial temperament leaves something to be desired....

I doubt it stops with the vote, and knowing dufus, he has another drama all ready to go. Probably not as good as Yankees vs Boston, but LOUD no doubt.

"The American Bar Association on Friday awarded (https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/Web%20rating%20Chart%20Trump%20115.authcheckdam.pd f) Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh its highest rating, giving the judge a unanimous “well-qualified” score.
“The rating of ‘Well Qualified’ is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement,” the ABA states in its description of the ranking process."

Well yeah, but Julie Swetnick said he was a gang rapist, so it just has to be true!!

If Trump is a dufus, then we need a lot more dufuses in the federal government. Economy doing great, much better than it was under Obama!

I find it interesting that you would rather delve and decry my veiws on abortion rather than debate the new revelations in the Kavanaugh nomination process. Item one people are coming out of the woodwork ready to tell their stories and no FBI agents to tell it to or even be assessed as credible, and item two, as a contrast to his rave reveiws from HS classmates, the ABA and thousands of law professors around the country have come out against his nomination.

You'll have to do a lot better than those three lame columns about Kavanaugh. The last read, in part, "The Washington Post reports that more than 1,200 law professors have signed a letter saying that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial restraint at a Senate hearing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/04/unprecedented-unfathomable-more-than-law-professors-sign-letter-after-kavanaugh-hearing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.67351ead30bc) last week — behavior that would be disqualifying for any court nominee."

First of all, they were doubtless 1200 liberal, democrat law professors. It can also be said that those 1200 law professors have never had such a contemptible pack of lies spread about them as was done with Kavanaugh. I imagine it took a lot of restraint not to beat the living crud out of those holier than thou democrat senators, all content to associate with Cory Booker who has openly admitted to doing basically the same thing Kavanaugh was accused of doing. If there was ever a greater demonstration of the pathetic plight of the democrat party, I don't recall seeing it.

Ask and you will receive... sometimes!

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/john-paul-stevens-brett-kavanaugh-withdraws-support-confirmation/

Liberal he ain't.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409565-2-former-yale-classmates-withdraw-support-for-kavanaugh

Better?

Below I am linking all the articles that show material evidence that Kavanaugh is guilty. I am also linking all the articles that tell how CB got to the party, where the party was located, the date of the party, and how she was driven home to her house several miles away. There are also articles to explain how her three witnesses all said her recollection of their involvement was entirely accurate.

nothing to be found! (http://nothingthere.org)

Might point out that there is as much evidence to show that Tal assaulted CBF as there is to show that Kavanaugh did it. In other words, there is no evidence. Doesn't matter to you, but it does matter to people who still believe in justice.

I should also link the many comments you doubtless have made calling for FBI investigations into the crimes of Cory Booker and Keith Ellison. Being a fair minded person, you have doubtless done so as a matter of fairness and honesty. Sadly, they don't seem to exist.

You know I think I recall being at that party, no wait, I'm older than Kavanaugh so it couldn't be me

More bad news for liberals: "The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez".

That is the same conclusion that would be reached with anyone having even half a brain and a few teaspoons of objectivity.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judiciary-committee-releases-executive-summary-of-supplemental-fbi-report-on-kavanaugh

That is the same conclusion that would be reached with anyone having even half a brain and a few teaspoons of objectivity. Hello j:

Objectivity???? Dude! They conducted the investigation with BLINDERS on.. You're NOT gonna find corroboration if you don't LOOK for corroboration.. Of course, it didn't solve a thing.. Without a REAL investigation, Kavanaugh is gonna be forever TAINTED.. The court will be TAINTED... And, the right wing will be TAINTED...

excon

Over the seven background checks, there have been over 150 people interviewed. There have been countless records checks. The one glaring issue that the Dems could have focused on was his prior statement about there being no requirement to investigate a sitting President or words to that affect. But they chose to dwell on things that have been proven as having no basis for fact. They goaded him into getting angry over the slanders to his credibility and character and then say he doesn't have the temperament . I get him . I'm half Irish and with charges like the ones he had to confront last week ,I would've needed to be restrained .

Over the seven background checks, there have been over 150 people interviewed. There have been countless records checks. etc.


Trump LIED that the FBI investigation was no-holds-barred while he knew damn well that McGahn was limiting the FBI as to what it could investigate. Is there anybody on this planet that doesn't know that?

Why won't the WH reveal the instructions it gave to the FBI? And that it was limited as to who it was allowed to interview. Trump used the big lie again as he has been doing for years. When you guys lie down with dogs, you're going to get up with fleas. You don't even have a Republican Party anymore. It's now Trump's Party - lock, stock and barrel. Only the name hasn't changed yet.

Kavanaugh is dirty as hell notwithstanding his faux protests on right-wing media. He has clearly revealed his prejudices against "leftists" and Clinton supporters, among others. This alone disqualifies him from serving on the High Court. He is not able to render an objective decision based on law. Being "Irish" is NOT an excuse and is probably the silliest thing I've seen here where silliness abounds.

I would've needed to be restrained .Hello tom:

You're not being considered for the highest court in the land.. If it woulda be me, I'da called 'em all sorts of names.. But, it's not either of us..

You might have needed to be restrained, but you would NOT have gone all partisan and conspiratorial.. Look.. I've known you for a long time.. You're a right winger, but you're not NUTS.

Call me naïve, but I have an unrelenting respect for the judiciary.. I BELIEVE a judge puts partisanship away when they put the black robes on.. Oh, they don't change their ideology, but ideology is NOT partisan. I have NEVER heard an applicant for ANY judgeship in this great country of ours, resort to a partisan rant in his confirmation hearing.. That would be NEVER.. I was shocked..

Lemme add, that those were his written remarks.. He can't blame it on being wrongly accused.

excon

Kavanaugh is dirty as hell

And the evidence for that is... non-existent, unless of course you consider flatulence and drinking games in a person's teen years to be evidence. All just ridiculous nonsense.

If anyone seems questionable, it's the three women who accused Kavanaugh. Both Ford and Ramierez named witnesses, all of whom promptly proceeded to dispute their claims. Can't remember when. Can't remember where. Can't remember how I got there or how I got home. Told no one about it for thirty years. Story has changed over the years. Swetnick has changed her story which is bizarre and nonsensical anyway. But it's Kavanaugh who is dirty?? I'm sorry, but you are allowing your hatred of the president and your political views to cloud your judgement.


Trump LIED that the FBI investigation was no-holds-barred while he knew damn well that McGahn was limiting the FBI as to what it could investigate. Is there anybody on this planet that doesn't know that?

Why won't the WH reveal the instructions it gave to the FBI?

Now that's funny. Neither you nor anyone else has seen the directions given to the FBI, yet you know that McGahn limited the investigation. Wow. What magical powers you must have. You know Kavanaugh is dirty, and you know Trump lied about the investigation, but you have no evidence for either one. You know, you'd make a good democrat party senator. Are you actually Diane Finestein in real life?

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2F166%2F16662%2F1666272.gif&t=1538747255&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c8f-27001d014d00&sig=tl9PmQXdra4YJczmMQHaVA--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/garyvarvel/s-2131890?ezine=641)

Pretty accurate, Tal, pretty accurate. Makes me wonder where all this is headed.

I hope we are not headed to MORE of our daughters not trusting their fathers to believe them if they came to us without evidence of a traumatic experience. We have raised the concerns for our SONS, but in doing so are we dismissing our daughters in the process? That's my fear JL. The most hopeful thing in all this was the Kavanaugh daughters praying for Dr. Ford.

Ex I respect your faith in the institution and the flawed humans who have occupied the bench . Lifetime appointments don't make them saints ;and many have stayed on much longer than any other profession would tolerate . Justice Henry Baldwin missed the entire 1833 term, hospitalized for what was called “incurable lunacy.” He remained on the court for 11 more years.Justice Robert C. Grier could “scarcely function” due to physical and mental decline. Yet, in 1869 ; just days before Grier agreed to leave the bench,Chief Justice Salmon Chase insisted on using the incompetent justice as the decisive vote to strike down the Legal Tender Act. Justice Nathan Clifford was described by one of his colleagues as a “babbling idiot.” He refused to resign and died on the court. Ward Hunt was left speechless and paralyzed after an illness. He refused to resign because he lacked the 10 years of service needed to earn a pension. Congress passed a law granting him a special pension to get him off the court.Justice Frank Murphy joined the court in 1940, when he was 57 He was addicted to drugs, including Demerol.Murphy bought illegal drugs twice a day when he was on the court.Chief Justice Rehnquist’s staff admitted that he had developed a “physiological dependence” on painkiller Placidy. Rehnquist started at 500 milligrams a day, but the dose soon tripled, to 1500 milligrams a day.It was not until Justice Rehnquist ended up in the hospital in January 1982, and it was learned that the Justice had been "seeing things and hearing things that other people didn't see or hear." that we learned of his issues . The compliant press covered up the obvious.William O. Douglas closed out his time on the bench by dozing during arguments, addressing people by the wrong names, and speaking in non sequiturs; after his resignation, he continued to show up for work, apparently convinced that he was still on the Court. Joseph McKenna was so incompetent at the end of his term that, William Howard Taft said he once "wrote an opinion deciding the case one way when there had been a unanimous vote the other, including his own."


. This institution gave us Dredd Scott ;which pretty much guaranteed there would be a Civil War . This institution gave us Buck v Bell which codified forced sterilization. One of the icons of SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in his majority opinion that .... "three generations of imbeciles are enough.") This institution gave us Korematsu which legalized concentration camps against Japanese Americans . This institution gave us Plessy which codified segregation. More recently this court in Kelo permitted the use of the Taking Clause to do a land grab from one private owner and give it to another private owner if the government deems that the 2nd private owner can make better use of the property . Wickard v Filburn and later Gonzales v Reich expanded the interstate commerce clause to give Congress the power to regulate business that is not interstate AND many non-commerce activities . Perhaps the one that created the super bureaucratic state ; Chevron v Natural Defense Council granted administrative agencies broad deference in creating regulations based on administrative interpretations of laws and thus granted administrative agencies of the executive branch broad lawmaking powers and usurping powers of Congress in turn. NFIB v Sebelius gave Congress the power to force people to buy insurance from a private provider .They did this by effectively re-writing the law written by Congress(from as penalty to a tax ) to make it agreeable to the expanded Commerce Clause . I could go on and on FCC v Propublica gave the FCC power over free speech . Lone Wolf v Hitchcock gave Congress power over native American lands and the permission to essentially break every treaty signed with the native Americans . Some of their decisions are comical like Nix v Hedden that defined tomatoes as a vegetable for taxing purposes even though a tomato is clearly a fruit. 1924 they decided that apple cider vinegar made from dried apples is not apple cider vinegar even though there is nothing different in the final products . and you know my thoughts on the infanticide that SCOTUS codified . Oh well enough of this for now . It is a flawed institution made more powerful by an unconstitutional power grab that for some reason remains uncontested . That would be an interesting case listening to SCOTUS decide on a case to restrict their power to their intended role . But as I wrote . More likely an amendment is required to change it . That is if SCOTUS doesn't rule the amendment unconstitutional .

I hope we are not headed to MORE of our daughters not trusting their fathers to believe them if they came to us without evidence of a traumatic experience.

Whose father is not trusting his daughter? Dr. Ford is not my daughter, and this is not about me trusting someone I don't even know in the same way that I would know and trust my daughter. You are trying to make this case a nationwide referendum on whether women get abused. That is not what this is about. It is about one man, the accusations leveled against him, and whether the evidence warrants any action. The bottom line is, the evidence does not at all support the allegations. So we should send Kavanaugh down the road because other women have, indeed, been abused? How does that help them?

Tom, you make some VERY strong arguments to not just term limits, but a more fair vetting process. Maybe it's not just the president and his cronies and sycophants who should decide the highest jurist in the land. Is it time to remove the politics from that branch of government? Or a more strict definition of the role of SCOTUS? I think removing it as an EQUAL branch of government would be a mistake, but we would also have to reduce the role s and power of the other two branches. Boy what a fight that would be!

Small government democracy? Or just better people in the job? Something to think about.


Whose father is not trusting his daughter? Dr. Ford is not my daughter, and this is not about me trusting someone I don't even know in the same way that I would know and trust my daughter. You are trying to make this case a nationwide referendum on whether women get abused. That is not what this is about. It is about one man, the accusations leveled against him, and whether the evidence warrants any action. The bottom line is, the evidence does not at all support the allegations. So we should send Kavanaugh down the road because other women have, indeed, been abused? How does that help them?

Whatever you say.

I think removing it as an EQUAL branch of government would be a mistake, That ship already sailed . My proposals would restore balance .

I can agree with term limits for SCOTUS. It also appears Kavanaugh has enough votes to be confirmed.

I think removing it as an EQUAL branch of government would be a mistake,

I would agree with that, but I don't know what to suggest other than to have justices who really believe in the rule of law and a proper role for SCOTUS.

term limits . This is my idea . A fixed term subject to renewal upon Senate consent. Repeat the confirmation process after 8 years . A new Senate re-confirms and there is a body of work in SCOTUS that the associate justice has accumulated . Too often they say what Senators want to hear during confirmation knowing they will never be held to account again .

Looks like BK will be confirmed. Now the next atrocity will be when ignorant, politically driven people start talking about "How Kavanaugh getting away with a sexual assault" has set the stage for more assaults against women. The two will have nothing to do with each other, but that won't stop them. BK got away with nothing since, the evidence indicates, nothing happened that involved him.

All the evidence wasn't gathered and evaluated.

How can you know?

term limits . This is my idea . A fixed term subject to renewal upon Senate consent. Repeat the confirmation process after 8 years . A new Senate re-confirms and there is a body of work in SCOTUS that the associate justice has accumulated . Too often they say what Senators want to hear during confirmation knowing they will never be held to account again .

Or they refuse to answer hypotheticals, or cases that MAY come before them in the future. How about a return to the 60 vote thresh hold for SCOTUS nominees?


Looks like BK will be confirmed. Now the next atrocity will be when ignorant, politically driven people start talking about "How Kavanaugh getting away with a sexual assault" has set the stage for more assaults against women. The two will have nothing to do with each other, but that won't stop them. BK got away with nothing since, the evidence indicates, nothing happened that involved him.

No telling what will be revealed in the coming months or years, but just as the shunning of Garland was seen as a dirty trick, so will the investigation of the Kavanaugh investigation be seen. Slick Mitch and dufus gets their twofer, but one battle not a war makes.


All the evidence wasn't gathered and evaluated.

I doubt it remains hidden either.

All the evidence wasn't gathered and evaluated.

Not sure what else could have been done. With all the holes in the stories presented by the three women, it finally just fell apart. If a person is going to make an accusation, it would be good to have some evidence to back it up, such as being able to remember important details. Let it go. There is nothing at all to show that BK was there. Nothing. End of story.

Can't really compare Garland and BK. The repubs pulled a political trick with Garland, and I can understand dems being upset by it, but that's what you can do when you control the senate. But they did not go after him personally and try to destroy his character with a highly questionable and difficult to believe series of accusations. One is smelly politics, but the other is a pathetic attempt to destroy a man's career and reputation.

Maybe the dems can get off their high horses long enough to take care of two of their own, Keith Ellison and Cory Booker. Perhaps its time to apologize to Monica Lewinsky and the other women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual offenses.

Not sure what else could have been done. With all the holes in the stories presented by the three women, it finally just fell apart. If a person is going to make an accusation, it would be good to have some evidence to back it up, such as being able to remember important details. Let it go. There is nothing at all to show that BK was there. Nothing. End of story.

Just keep holding your nose at what the dufus keeps cooking up.

Not sure what else could have been done.
Um, interview more than six people, interview all the people from back then who have come forward, interview for a reasonable length of time, interview longer than two or maybe three days.

Took a while to get Dennis Hastert too, but they got him.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/former-speaker-dennis-hastert-indicted-in-payment-scheme-118387

The thing about this investigation though that stinks is not just the small number of people questioned, but who decided who to question. The WH says the senators had control of the scope, the senators say the WH. We will never know what the marching orders were, or who issued them but the dufus said the FBI was free to follow any lead it found.

Sadly that leaves a lot of stories yet to tell.

Um, interview more than six people, interview all the people from back then who have come forward, interview for a reasonable length of time.


Of course!!

A great deal of information arose far beyond what was represented by the three original accusers. NONE of this new information was allowed or even discussed by the WH-driven FBI investigation. It is a damn disgrace and you know that when the right starts bringing up the past like the Clintons simply to distract from what is being discovered to avoid getting at the truth.

Putting Booker in the same category as Kavanaugh is the height of Fox-inspired right-wing absurdity.

Um, interview more than six people, interview all the people from back then who have come forward, interview for a reasonable length of time, interview longer than two or maybe three days.

It WAS more than three days. But if it had been seven, then people would have asked, "Why not ten?" They interviewed, I believe, nine people, with one person not agreeing to testify. That is more than the six you note, but even with the ten, folks will say, "Why wasn't it fifteen?" Democrats said, "We must have the FBI involved in this." They got their way, found out nothing, and are now complaining even more. There is nothing that will stop the complaining because nothing but the rejection of Kavanaugh would satisfy. If that means the destruction of an innocent man's life, family, and reputation, then so be it. It is hard to understand how some of you on this board are OK with that, but you plainly are, and that is tragic. All the rest of this whining is just a smoke screen to hide the real agenda.

Nope. Flake set it up to fail.

I don't know if it was Flake who set this investigation to fail, but have no doubt the White House, or senate leadership had a lot to do with how this sham was perpetrated. The fix was in to find nothing new.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2F166%2F16660%2F1666028.gif&t=1538829090&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1cce-7a0004015300&sig=NsCVQQ.mfsFUqRAm.Q4vuw--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/signewilkinson/s-2131604?ezine=641)

He lies as usual, and attacked Ford to the delight of his cheering base while he called her credible before.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F166%2F16662%2F1666273.jpg&t=1538829090&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1cce-7a0004015300&sig=9.Nl3KO_TOMR88_TBbt9sg--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/jeffdanziger/s-2131892?ezine=640&r=AVZ8fEwHhMUM36VV0NYl5LQ88oZnOk3DF160mVHUJBRDOjUx MDM2OTA1Oko6MTc5NDAzODpMOjY0MDpSOjI1MTI3NDpTOjIxMz E4OTI6Vjo0OQ)
Time not truth was the real agenda.

you all should listen to Susan Collin's address yesterday https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXzzmjgyO9k

Yeah. Right. The whole country is just dripping with evidence against BK. Everything known now points to his innocence, but no doubt if the FBI had kept on looking for another year or two, they would have found a hidden yearbook with handwritten notes about flatulence.

No, it's all about destroying a man just to get your way. I don't always agree with Lindsey Graham, but he was right in his statement about the dems. They will do anything in order to gain power. This is just another sick illustration of that fact. The only good thing I can think of is that the corrupt nature of the left is now on full display for the whole country to see. They will do anything and destroy anyone in order to get power. A letter of accusation held in secret for months. A woman whose desire for anonymity is tossed aside by a leaked letter. Delay. Stall. Accuse. Whine. Complain. Good grief. What corrupt attempt is next? The good news is that Mr. Trump is beginning to look downright clean compared to the people you guys support.

49068

I listened to her regurgitate the party line but she always votes to confirm SCOTUS nominees. Of course she can't find any new evidence because the fix was in on the investigation. Not surprised no one even raises that on your side. It is fascinating how repubs take the word of the accused, and his troubled drunk buddy who wrote books about what he had done over the accuser, no questions asked.

Well hell by that standard empty the freakin' jails. So much for due diligence. The devils triangle seems to fit the dufus, slick mitch, and grassface rather well. It's not what she said Tom, but what she didn't say. All this Fake sympathy does hide the fact that this was a done deal from the very beginning no matter what. Be honest, there was no search for truth, but a promotion of agenda.

I understand trust, but not failure to verify. You got your well heeled connected frat boy. That was the whole purpose of the exercise and you had the power to do it.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/166/16666/1666698.gif

Yeah. Right. The whole country is just dripping with evidence against BK. Everything known now points to his innocence, but no doubt if the FBI had kept on looking for another year or two, they would have found a hidden yearbook with handwritten notes about flatulence.

No, it's all about destroying a man just to get your way. I don't always agree with Lindsey Graham, but he was right in his statement about the dems. They will do anything in order to gain power. This is just another sick illustration of that fact. The only good thing I can think of is that the corrupt nature of the left is now on full display for the whole country to see. They will do anything and destroy anyone in order to get power. A letter of accusation held in secret for months. A woman whose desire for anonymity is tossed aside by a leaked letter. Delay. Stall. Accuse. Whine. Complain. Good grief. What corrupt attempt is next? The good news is that Mr. Trump is beginning to look downright clean compared to the people you guys support.

Haven't had your coffee yet but I see your already halfway through the Kool-Aid. I find it fascinating that you say nothing of repubs stall job on Garland but you have proved very proficient at holding your nose and swallowing the trump party line at the same time. KUDOS for multitasking.

Never mind Tal one day you will have a government instead of a circus

You elect a ringmaster, you get a circus Clete. He is good at staging drama, and plenty of clowns. By Monday we may be back to the dufus lying, cheating, and misrepresenting his wealth, and how he got it. Mueller returns after the mid term elections and a purge of dufus enemies may be drawing closer.

Always something to see here so stay tuned.

How about a return to the 60 vote thresh hold for SCOTUS nominees?
just an FYI . The vote was always a majority vote .It was the cloture rule to end debate that required a super majority . What you are complaining about is the 'Reid Rule' that ended the super majority for judicial appointees . I think the genie is out of the bottle with that .

"Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom."
Sen Susan Collins

just an FYI . The vote was always a majority vote .It was the cloture rule to end debate that required a super majority . What you are complaining about is the 'Reid Rule' that ended the super majority for judicial appointees . I think the genie is out of the bottle with that .

"Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom."
Sen Susan Collins

Reid's Rule was for judges true, but specifically not for SCOTUS. THAT change was all Slick Mitch. He owns the current SCOTUS process, happily I might add, lock, stock, and barrel. The coup by the devils triangle is pretty locked in and they have their partisan hack frat boy on the court. We will see though if the court is as political as our elected officials, or if indeed we go back to 1950.

Remember how that pendulum always swings back? Well this is but it being on conservatives side for now but with Kavanaugh done, we both know the headlines will change don't we? Me trying to get my head around this new rebranded copy/paste trade deal coming soon to a vote near you. ;D

Curious still is the funding for commercials for SCOTUS nominees.

It is fascinating how repubs take the word of the accused, and his troubled drunk buddy who wrote books about what he had done over the accuser, no questions asked. Funny you say that, since you are the one just taking someone's word for something and not bothering to look at the evidence, no questions asked. Yep. That's you doing that.



I find it fascinating that you say nothing of repubs stall job on Garland but you have proved very proficient at holding your nose and swallowing the trump party line at the same time. KUDOS for multitasking.

Actually I did mention Garland earlier. You didn't bother to read it. I pointed out that there is a huge difference between refusing to consider a nominee versus destroying a man's reputation.

Seems Christians don't mind destroying a mans reputation either.

NCC Calls for Withdrawal of Kavanaugh Nomination | (http://nationalcouncilofchurches.us/ncc-calls-for-withdrawal-of-kavanaugh-nomination/)



The National Council of Churches (NCC) calls for the withdrawal of the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. We believe he has disqualified himself from this lifetime appointment and must step aside immediately. We note several reasons. During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation. We are deeply disturbed by the multiple allegations of sexual assault and call for a full and unhindered investigation of these accusations.In addition, his testimony before the Judiciary Committee included several misstatements and some outright falsehoods. All citizens must be expected to speak truthfully when under oath, however, this is especially true for anyone who seeks a seat on the Supreme Court.Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive judicial and political record is troubling with regard to issues of voting rights, racial and gender justice, health care, the rights of people with disabilities, and environmental protections. This leads us to believe that he cannot be an impartial justice in cases that are sure to come before him at the Court.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Churches

Jump to search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Churches#p-search)


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/NCC_USA.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NCC_USA.jpg)


Founded
1950


Website

nationalcouncilofchurches.us (http://nationalcouncilofchurches.us/)



The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, usually identified as the National Council of Churches (NCC), is the largest ecumenical body in the United States.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Churches#cite_note-1) NCC is an ecumenical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism) partnership of 38 Christian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) faith groups in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). Its member communions include Mainline Protestant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant), Orthodox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church), African American (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_church), Evangelical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism), Josephite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephite_(Latter_Day_Saints)) and historic peace churches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_churches). Together, they encompass more than 100,000 local congregations and 40 million adherents.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Churches#cite_note-2) It began as the Federal Council of Churches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Council_of_Churches) in 1908, and expanded through merger with several other ecumenical organizations to become the National Council of Churches in 1950.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Churches#cite_note-3)

Appealing to the NCC is pretty weak. They try to appeal to everything currently popular. They host as speakers those who are living lifestyles plainly against Scripture.

You still have the problem of convicting a person on the basis of no evidence. I know that bothers you not at all, but it bothers people who still cling to the concept of justice.

ummm that Garland thingy . It's called the Biden rule .



but she always votes to confirm SCOTUS nominees. and so does many Republicans .They don't vote in a block like the Dems to a point where one aisle crosser is being eviciratated today . I thought you guys liked it when a Senator shows independence and crosses the aisle to vote against the party line .Guess not .