Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[Quin]

"The man who attempted to rape me in high school is about to become a Supreme Court justice and make decisions about women's bodies for the next three decades."

That's why it's coming out now.

[ptatc]

8 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

The fear that her attempted rapist would be on the supreme court finally outweighed the fear of being attacked by people like you.

I just don't like crimes being used for political purposes. She should go after him and he should get everything he deserves.

Yes, I'm an awful person. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by ptatc

[ptatc]

2 hours ago, Quinarvy said:

"The man who attempted to rape me in high school is about to become a Supreme Court justice and make decisions about women's bodies for the next three decades."

That's why it's coming out now.

I get it. It just makes it sound like the crime wasn't important until he ran for an important position. Should this never have been brought up, if he wasn't up for an important position?

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I get it. It just makes it sound like the crime wasn't important until he ran for an important position. Should this never have been brought up, if he wasn't up for an important position?

If this were a just world, then after he did it, she would have been able to take her case to the police, have it heard fairly, investigated fairly, and he would have been punished appropriately. 

Judges...happen to play a large role in why that doesn't happen most of the time. Not the only role, but a big one.

[ptatc]

42 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If this were a just world, then after he did it, she would have been able to take her case to the police, have it heard fairly, investigated fairly, and he would have been punished appropriately. 

Judges...happen to play a large role in why that doesn't happen most of the time. Not the only role, but a big one.

They do. But she didn't report it when he became a judge at a lower level. Didn't he as a judge play a role where is could have adverse effects? 

The only issue I have is her comment about he shouldn't be a supreme court justice. He shouldn't have been any type of judge. He shouldn't have become a lawyer. It as only important when the topic of Supreme Court was brought up.

[StrangeSox]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

I just don't like crimes being used for political purposes. She should go after him and he should get everything he deserves.

Yes, I'm an awful person. 

what he deserves is to not have a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country. crimes are used for political purposes constantly, and honestly, they absolutely should be. we shouldn't want criminals and rapists with that much power.

 

defending him and attacking her, which is absolutely what you're doing here, is awful. that she chose to finally come forward when the stakes were at their highest is not a slight on her. you're arguing that because she didn't come forward before, she needs to sit down and shut up now while her smiling attempted rapist gets appointed and hailed as a great man.

Edited September 17, 2018 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

The GOP's gambit appears to be "say we should hold public hearings over these accusations" with the expectation that Ford would decline, but she immediately called their bluff and said she'd testify publicly.

[StrangeSox]

It's pretty weird to argue that a lifetime appointment to the federal government made by a politician and confirmed by a bunch of other politicians shouldn't be "politicized," too. The whole process is political from start to finish.

[caulfield12]

But few prosecutors in the 1990s would have pursued an extensive criminal investigation over perjury into a middle-aged man’s lies about adultery if that person had not been President Clinton. In his zeal at the time, Kavanaugh, like Starr, may have worked himself into a belief that this was about sacred principles of law, but to many others—and ultimately to a clear majority of the country—it was obvious that the case was fundamentally about political power. 

Kavanaugh’s fate, too, now depends on precisely the same thing: Do the allegations change the calculation for the perhaps half-a-dozen senators—including Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—whose minds were not already made up by earlier political calculations? 

With the benefit of hindsight, Kavanaugh later concluded presidents should be shielded from criminal investigations of the sort he helped wage against Clinton. At the time, however, he was filled with righteous indignation. “It is our job,” he wrote colleagues in Starr’s office in an email, “to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear—piece by painful piece.”

 

politico.com

[StrangeSox]

 

He also wrote an article a few years back about an imaginary black man stealing his bicycle justifying his prejudices.

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

13 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

what he deserves is to not have a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country. crimes are used for political purposes constantly, and honestly, they absolutely should be. we shouldn't want criminals and rapists with that much power.

 

defending him and attacking her, which is absolutely what you're doing here, is awful. that she chose to finally come forward when the stakes were at their highest is not a slight on her. you're arguing that because she didn't come forward before, she needs to sit down and shut up now while her smiling attempted rapist gets appointed and hailed as a great man.

Jesus this is a terrible take. 

Complaining about the politicization of the issue is not ignoring the victim. And yes, it's highly fucking suspect that she happens to come out days before his confirmation vote when he was selected by Trump as his SC nominee 2.5 months ago.  You and I both know some congressional aide somewhere found her, interviewed her and then sat on this until this precise moment to bring it up because of the political points it would win, not because they wanted justice. You can point all that out without "blaming the victim." 

I'm not really sure when the pendulum swung so far that now instead of presuming innocence we presume guilt. Every woman is to be believed 100% of the time. They are accusations. People can, and do, make shit up. That doesn't mean you discount every accusation, but it also doesn't mean you accept it as 100% truth.

Questioning this woman (and the people helping her) and the timing of her accusations =/= attacking her. 

[StrangeSox]

1) the entire process is political start to finish. whining about "politicizing" it makes zero sense.

2) she sent the letter to Feinstein months ago. there weren't any congressional aides that tracked her down. at least get the basic facts straight before you start attacking her with a bunch of imagined bullshit.

3) I didn't say anything about victim-blaming. I said she's being attacked and being told to shut up.

thank you for providing another solid demonstration of my "terrible take," jenks.

[Balta1701]

9 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Jesus this is a terrible take. 

Complaining about the politicization of the issue is not ignoring the victim. And yes, it's highly fucking suspect that she happens to come out days before his confirmation vote when he was selected by Trump as his SC nominee 2.5 months ago.  You and I both know some congressional aide somewhere found her, interviewed her and then sat on this until this precise moment to bring it up because of the political points it would win, not because they wanted justice. You can point all that out without "blaming the victim." 

I'm not really sure when the pendulum swung so far that now instead of presuming innocence we presume guilt. Every woman is to be believed 100% of the time. They are accusations. People can, and do, make shit up. That doesn't mean you discount every accusation, but it also doesn't mean you accept it as 100% truth.

Questioning this woman (and the people helping her) and the timing of her accusations =/= attacking her. 

Ignoring the documented history where she brought this up to a therapist in 2012 to claim that it is "highly f***ing suspect that she comes out days before the confirmation vote" and ignoring the fact that she also submitted this claim to her local representative when he was nominated 2.5 months ago but still asked for privacy is pretty much the definition of ignoring and attacking the victim. It's also a perfect demonstration of why she would have not wanted this to become public, because she absolutely knew that she was going to be bombarded with people openly suggesting she made it up.

[Jenksismyhero]

So 2.5 months ago she wanted to remain private, but now she's willing to testify. I wonder why. I wonder what changed. I wonder what was about to happen. 

I'm all for an investigation if it seems warranted. Postpone the vote too if necessary. But questioning someone's motives (and those behind her) based on timing is not ignoring/attacking the victim.

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

So 2.5 months ago she wanted to remain private, but now she's willing to testify. I wonder why. I wonder what changed. I wonder what was about to happen. 

I'm all for an investigation if it seems warranted. Postpone the vote too if necessary. But questioning someone's motives (and those behind her) based on timing is not ignoring/attacking the victim.

You had a combination of the press starting to get wind of the report, in the last week she said she had received calls at her house from the Press and I think she said someone had contacted her work (i could have forgotten that one but there were at least 2 reports of the press getting wind of it), and yes, you had the Republicans racing to get the vote done before the midterm elections so it was either now or never.

[StrangeSox]

10 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

So 2.5 months ago she wanted to remain private, but now she's willing to testify. I wonder why. I wonder what changed. I wonder what was about to happen. 

I'm all for an investigation if it seems warranted. Postpone the vote too if necessary. But questioning someone's motives (and those behind her) based on timing is not ignoring/attacking the victim.

maybe acquaint yourself with the basic timeline before you keep attacking her or the motives/actions you imagine her to have?

Feinstein kept the letter private at Ford's request. It was only when other Senate Dems learned that Feinstein had some sort of letter and pressured her that she referred it to the FBI. Then reporters dug. She is willing to testify because Republicans are asking her to.

It would have been more damaging to release that letter ahead of the confirmation hearings and ask him about it under oath, anyway.

[StrangeSox]

this whole family is pure trash:

 

[Jenksismyhero]

But if her intent was to warn people about Kavanaugh, why send the letter under a different name, and why tell Feinstein to keep it private? Get the story out there, with a name and with the details. She's a smart woman. She knew anonymous accusations wouldn't be enough. 

Feinstein and/or her office let all this slip out. It was strategic. They're using this woman for political purposes. 

[StrangeSox]

10 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

But if her intent was to warn people about Kavanaugh, why send the letter under a different name, and why tell Feinstein to keep it private? Get the story out there, with a name and with the details. She's a smart woman. She knew anonymous accusations wouldn't be enough. 

Feinstein and/or her office let all this slip out. It was strategic. They're using this woman for political purposes. 

It's a political process. These allegations are being made against a political appointee. That doesn't make them less serious or credible.

And despite getting the basic facts wrong at least twice now on this page, you're still assigning motives and actions to people without any basis. Maybe...stop doing that since you keep getting it wrong? Maybe consider that women have good reasons to not want to come forward with allegations, especially high-profile ones?

 

[bmags]

9 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

But if her intent was to warn people about Kavanaugh, why send the letter under a different name, and why tell Feinstein to keep it private? Get the story out there, with a name and with the details. She's a smart woman. She knew anonymous accusations wouldn't be enough. 

Feinstein and/or her office let all this slip out. It was strategic. They're using this woman for political purposes. 

Her letter asked for further communication with Feinstein, so asking her not to leak it out. She says she was (rightfully) reluctant to go through the scrutiny of her and her family. But when it was clear that an anonymous accusation was not going to be enough to bring up, she went forward with it.

I find the "feinstein was being STRATEGIC TO BRING IT DOWN" garbage. Do you know what would have been absolutely worse? Getting an anonymous letter from a constituent and publishing it. She was refusing to even share it with her judiciary committee democratic colleagues.

These always hit an arc, but I'm not shocked that the woman finally decided it was only worth needing to be shared when she knew he was going to be confirmed. If you believe her, then her life is absolutely going to be garbage now, but had Kavanaugh not made it out of committee she could have avoided having to see him in public life for the rest of her life knowing what he did AND avoided having to drag her own life through the mud (again).

Let's just do a mental exercise and assume in option A) this did happen and option B) she made it up. The decision making process for going forward are very similar.

 

But yeah, anyway tell me now Devin Nunes would have handled this.

[StrangeSox]

30 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

this whole family is pure trash:

 

 

[StrangeSox]

10 minutes ago, bmags said:

 

But yeah, anyway tell me now Devin Nunes would have handled this.

Democrats forced both Franken and Conyers out of office over the allegations against them.

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

what he deserves is to not have a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country. crimes are used for political purposes constantly, and honestly, they absolutely should be. we shouldn't want criminals and rapists with that much power.

 

defending him and attacking her, which is absolutely what you're doing here, is awful. that she chose to finally come forward when the stakes were at their highest is not a slight on her. you're arguing that because she didn't come forward before, she needs to sit down and shut up now while her smiling attempted rapist gets appointed and hailed as a great man.

What he deserves is to never have been a judge in the first place. I am not defending him in the least. He should be prosecuted and should have been prosecuted for his crime. By her saying he shouldn't be a supreme court justice is saying it was fine for him to be a lower level judge because it didn't matter until he was a nominee for the supreme court.

[southsider2k5]

2 hours ago, ptatc said:

I get it. It just makes it sound like the crime wasn't important until he ran for an important position. Should this never have been brought up, if he wasn't up for an important position?

Judging by the fact that the right was ready for this with pages of signatures saying it never happened, I would be shocked if this wasn't known long before these hearings.

[StrangeSox]

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

What he deserves is to never have been a judge in the first place. I am not defending him in the least. He should be prosecuted and should have been prosecuted for his crime. By her saying he shouldn't be a supreme court justice is saying it was fine for him to be a lower level judge because it didn't matter until he was a nominee for the supreme court.

It's her saying she wasn't willing to come forward and face the attacks and never-ending scrutiny over an appeals court appointment 12 years ago. She is well within her rights to decide that things may have changed in the last 12 years for a variety of reasons or that a lifetime SCOTUS position is worth her life being changed forever while the lower court position was not.