Republicans War on Women

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

I did answer.  You haven't explained why it matters.

And you're not an investigator, remember?  For all you know, one of those could have been dead on.

My.
You are certainly putting an unusual amount of energy into avoiding this question.

Would you mind suspending your pathetic attempt to continue trolling so that the adults here can discuss Dr Ford's testimony? Thanks

I found Dr Ford extremely credible. The format is a disaster for the GOP. How awkward is the 5 minutes for the prosecutor due to the cowardice of the GOP Senators,followed by intelligent caring questions and comments by Democratic Senators. Grassley being his usual cranky self? Not very unhelpful!

happy jack wrote:

Perhaps you can tell me why it matters, in light of the fact that you axed me the same question.

It doesn't, which is why I immediately tossed back the question to you, hoping you'd just get to the point. But, alas, you didn't have one, and were just talking out of your ass as usual.

American Bar Association urges Senate to wait for FBI investigation of Kavanaugh allegations

Quote :

The American Bar Association late Thursday urged the Senate to delay a confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until after the FBI has reviewed sexual assault claims against him.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ABA President Robert Carlson said senators should not “rush to a vote” and that allegations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford should be thoroughly investigated.

“We make this request because of the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law,” Carlson wrote. “Each appointment to our nation’s Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote.”

He added, “Respectfully, the Senate should recognize that a thorough FBI investigation will demonstrate its commitment to a Supreme Court that is above reproach.”

FactCheck.org: Trump’s Spin on Kavanaugh and FBI

Quote :

Let’s first look at the president’s claim that there was nothing for the FBI to investigate.

The president said, “They didn’t know the location. They didn’t know the time. They didn’t know the year. They didn’t know anything.” That is not true in Ford’s case.

Of the three accusers, Ford has given the most detailed account of her allegations.

In a July 30 letter to the Sen. Dianne Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford said the alleged attack occurred in a “suburban Maryland area home” in the “early 1980s” when both Kavanaugh and Ford were in high school. She told the Washington Post in a Sept. 16 article that it occurred in the summer of 1982 at a house in Montgomery County, not far from the Columbia Country Club in Chevy Chase.

In an update to the Senate judiciary investigation posted on Sept. 23, the committee states that it “learned the identities of the four other individuals Dr. Ford claimed were at the party when the incident took place.” The committee identified them as Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Patrick J. Smyth and Leland Ingham Keyser.

All this is more than enough information for the FBI to reopen its background investigation of Kavanaugh — if directed to do so by the president.

That is exactly what happened in the fall of 1991, when Anita Hill accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment when the two worked together at the Education Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the early 1980s.

Magazine of Jesuits urges withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination

Quote :

The magazine of the Jesuit religious order in the United States has publicly withdrawn its endorsement of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court justice following testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Jesuit-educated Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexually assaulting her decades ago.

In an editorial posted late Thursday, America magazine said it had no special insight into whether Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth. But it said that the nomination was no longer in the interests of the country and “should be withdrawn.”

“If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman’s report of an assault,” the editors wrote. “Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country.”

Brett Kavanaugh Claimed He Could Legally Drink in Maryland in High School. He Could Not

Quote :

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has repeatedly said that he was legally allowed to consume beer as a prep school senior in Maryland. In fact, he was never legal in high school because the state’s drinking age increased to 21 at the end of his junior year, while he was still 17.

It's one thing to make that mistaken assumption when you're 17.  It's entirely different when you're about to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

No good judge worth the appointment would float such an obviously false statement.

And, of course, that's assuming that one didn't think that the irrational and unfounded claims of conspiracy, and (more importantly) the promise of retribution, weren't enough to disqualify this "impartial" judge from the highest court in the country.

Bottom line, he's staggeringly unfit for high office.

happy jack wrote:

Are you going to accept the results of the investigation, whatever they may turn out to be?

Yes, for the rape allegations.

He's still a terrible pick for SCOTUS.  No FBI investigation will change that.  That's what's unfortunately getting lost in all of this.  The GOP didn't care about his ability, which removed any honest discussion of it, leaving these allegations as the only way to block his nomination, hence their hyperfocus on the matter.

It is wildly entertaining watching these asshole pretend they're so obsessed with procedure and decorum after what they did to Garland. It certainly doesn't play well to any remaining independants.

So based on the related evidence we have (that the GOP would release), what's your opinion on his legal ability?  Does the above (and/or anything else you can cite) sound like an impartial and evidence based legal mind worthy of SCOTUS?

Christine Blasey Ford testimony was bloodbath for Brett Kavanaugh, Trump and Republicans

Quote :

In my 30 years as a prosecutor and lawyer, I have never seen a more credible witness than professor Ford. It’s not simply that the key details of her account hung together and that she provided the types of rich particulars that truthful witnesses provide, such as the second front door she insisted on in her home out of residual fear from the attack. Or that her account was supported by pre-nominaton statements from third parties (such as her therapist) and her own polygraph. Or that it comports with the key documentary evidence we do have.

It was, in a word, Ford’s demeanor.

That's been the assessment across the legal blogs I follow, and exactly what one would expect given the science of trauma and memory.  Kavanaugh was angry, emotional, and quick to play the victim, like any abuser challenged in such cases.  Instead of shock, it's almost always an overplayed, belligerent "how dare you question me." His behavior certainly didn't help him, nor did the irrational claims of conspiracy, though I'm sure it played well for conservatives and red pills so obsessed with masculinity and so frightened by the #metoo movement holding them accountable for their behavior.

I don't doubt Ford was a victim, but eye witness testimony is the most unreliable. If this is a case of mistaken identity, however unlikely, the investigation will hopefully solve that.

Kavanaugh remains a terrible pick for SCOTUS, however.  His only benchmark for the GOP was abortion and eventually giving the President a pass when the fallout from the Mueller investigation hits.

happy jack wrote:

You have been demanding an FBI investigation, and now it appears that there will be one.

You're right, but it's not happening because Republicans care about the truth of the matter, however.  

I would think anyone would demand an investigation if they were giving serious consideration to allegations of political conspiracy and false reporting, but strangely the GOP didn't until Kavanaugh fumbled his way through his testimony and Graham got an old fashioned case of the vapersl The resulting optics looked absolutely terrible for the GOP, so at that point, the only way to save face was an investigation.

Do you think such allegations (either Ford's rape or Kavanaugh/Graham's conspiracy) warrant an investigation?  Yes/no?  And why/why not?

happy jack wrote:

So, you either acknowledge and accept the opinion of the ABA and its "respect for the rule of law and due process under law", or you don't.

Like you did with Garland?  

My reasons for citing the ABA were obvious, which were an obvious refutation to your claims that an FBI investigation was without merit or formulation.  You were wrong.  Empirically so.

That said, the ABA is certainly not our only benchmark for approving SCOTUS nominees, and your attempt to frame it as such is completely false. But if you're insisting it is, Kavanaugh's still out.

Try harder next time.  This is getting boring.

happy jack wrote:

So, was the ABA wrong then, or is it wrong now?

You tell me.  I didn't cite it as a benchmark for SCOTUS nominees, but only to refute your grade school analysis on the rape allegations.  You cited it as some SCOTUS authority, so justifying it falls on you.

Did you believe the ABA was wrong then, or is it wrong now?

We'll wait.

happy jack wrote:

The key word here is 'allegations'. Do you need that word defined for you?
His qualifications have not changed one bit.

Exactly.  Qualifications are accomplishments.  Are you seriously proposing that being a felon shouldn't have any bearing on hiring because it literally doesn't count as a qualification?

This whole conversation would be easier and more productive (and less embarrassing) if you just stopped regurgitating conservative talking points.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

 You cited it as some SCOTUS authority, so justifying it falls on you.

I did no such thing. I cited it as my reference point.

As a reference point on their SCOTUS authority.  Cheesus Crust, put a little bit of effort in this.  I know you're incapable, but I'm starting to get embarrassed for you.

happy jack wrote:

Sorry, this is the first I've heard that he's a felon.
Could you provide a source for that, please?

Didn't say he was a felon.  Read again what I said, or have an 8 yr old read it out loud for you:

I wrote:

Are you seriously proposing that being a felon shouldn't have any bearing on hiring because it literally doesn't count as a qualification?

As you said, felonious behavior doesn't change qualifications one bit.

Or do you need the word defined for you?