Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

[DCHawk1]

That's not all, there is another one.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... ah-ramirez

This is ridiculous.

So says you.
Perhaps it is "ridiculous". Perhaps it's not "ridiculous".

Do you feel it's "ridiculous" that a man who is being nominated for the highest court in the land is now being accused of inappropriate sexual behavior by another woman?
Or do you feel, "ridiculous" is a women making false allegations? - Assuming they are false.
Maybe "ridiculous" is people refusing to believe a woman or absolutely believing a woman who is telling a true or a false story - because they don't like or they do like that she is accusing someone they choose to feel is innocent or guilty. - ASSUMING the allegations are true or false.

You're outguttering yourself. It's ridiculous that anyone -- much less Farrow -- would go to print with this garbage.

The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

[HouseDivided]

That, unfortunately, is the state of the "mainstream" media today: a mouthpiece for the far Left, unencumbered by journalistic ethics or common decency. But it is accomplishing exactly what it set out to do, which is to convince people that there is no truth. The day that finally reaches its zenith will be absolutely terrifying; it will mark the end of civilization as we know it.

[Mjl]

This is ridiculous.

So says you.
Perhaps it is "ridiculous". Perhaps it's not "ridiculous".

Do you feel it's "ridiculous" that a man who is being nominated for the highest court in the land is now being accused of inappropriate sexual behavior by another woman?
Or do you feel, "ridiculous" is a women making false allegations? - Assuming they are false.
Maybe "ridiculous" is people refusing to believe a woman or absolutely believing a woman who is telling a true or a false story - because they don't like or they do like that she is accusing someone they choose to feel is innocent or guilty. - ASSUMING the allegations are true or false.

You're outguttering yourself. It's ridiculous that anyone -- much less Farrow -- would go to print with this garbage.

The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

Pretty messed up. I guess the New Yorker wants to be a tabloid.

[Deleted User 57]

This is ridiculous.

So says you.
Perhaps it is "ridiculous". Perhaps it's not "ridiculous".

Do you feel it's "ridiculous" that a man who is being nominated for the highest court in the land is now being accused of inappropriate sexual behavior by another woman?
Or do you feel, "ridiculous" is a women making false allegations? - Assuming they are false.
Maybe "ridiculous" is people refusing to believe a woman or absolutely believing a woman who is telling a true or a false story - because they don't like or they do like that she is accusing someone they choose to feel is innocent or guilty. - ASSUMING the allegations are true or false.

You're outguttering yourself. It's ridiculous that anyone -- much less Farrow -- would go to print with this garbage.

The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

I'll outgutter myself even more.

It's "garbage" because no one can/will corroborate/confirm (nor deny) the story - so of course it didn't happen?
Got it!

I read the story. I'm not going to pretend I know for certain that it's legit or bull-shit.
You and others can feel free to do as such.
Have at it.

[seahawk]

Seems like there's another allegation surfacing. Perhaps we could remember that this is not a trial, but a job interview. One which seems to be revealing that the would be employee is a high functioning alcoholic who has a gambling problem and some past unpleasant behavior with women.

[jfish26]

It's awfully hard to argue against this today:

Brett Kavanaugh Is A Man The Right Can Get Behind

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/brett ... 1829225731

A thing it took, like, the New York Times and Washington Post and CNN and so forth maybe a little too long to figure out, back during the 2016 campaigns, a lapse that has launched innumerable blinkered Cletus Safaris in search of some other, less chillingly sociopathic answer in the aftermath of that hell-moment, is this: What the American right wants, what it’s after, isn’t some abstract pluralist success, like the smooth functioning of government and/or the material improvement of American life. It wants, only and entirely, to defeat its opponents. Those aren’t quite the same thing. The Republican party would not choose the former if it could be accomplished without the latter.

[...]

It has to be this guy. It has to be this guy now more than ever. It has to be this guy, now, because he has been accused, credibly, of attempting to rape a 15-year-old girl in 1982—moreover because people believe this should be considered a disqualifying blight on his record. The thing that must happen is that those people must be defeated. That is the whole point. What must be shown to the whole world is that this, even this, cannot stop him. The bigger the outrage that can be brushed aside, the more thorough the defeat for the people who thought something, anything, might take precedence over this white man being the pick of another white man.

[HouseDivided]

So says you.
Perhaps it is "ridiculous". Perhaps it's not "ridiculous".

Do you feel it's "ridiculous" that a man who is being nominated for the highest court in the land is now being accused of inappropriate sexual behavior by another woman?
Or do you feel, "ridiculous" is a women making false allegations? - Assuming they are false.
Maybe "ridiculous" is people refusing to believe a woman or absolutely believing a woman who is telling a true or a false story - because they don't like or they do like that she is accusing someone they choose to feel is innocent or guilty. - ASSUMING the allegations are true or false.

You're outguttering yourself. It's ridiculous that anyone -- much less Farrow -- would go to print with this garbage.

The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

I'll outgutter myself even more.

It's "garbage" because no one can/will corroborate/confirm (nor deny) the story - so of course it didn't happen?
Got it!

I read the story. I'm not going to pretend I know for certain that it's legit or bull-shit.
You and others can feel free to do as such.
Have at it.

So, if I allege that you sexually assaulted me, even though we've never met in person, it should be treated as true because I said it and "feel" that it is true?

That's a slippery slope.

[HouseDivided]

It's awfully hard to argue against this today:

Brett Kavanaugh Is A Man The Right Can Get Behind

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/brett ... 1829225731

A thing it took, like, the New York Times and Washington Post and CNN and so forth maybe a little too long to figure out, back during the 2016 campaigns, a lapse that has launched innumerable blinkered Cletus Safaris in search of some other, less chillingly sociopathic answer in the aftermath of that hell-moment, is this: What the American right wants, what it’s after, isn’t some abstract pluralist success, like the smooth functioning of government and/or the material improvement of American life. It wants, only and entirely, to defeat its opponents. Those aren’t quite the same thing. The Republican party would not choose the former if it could be accomplished without the latter.

[...]

It has to be this guy. It has to be this guy now more than ever. It has to be this guy, now, because he has been accused, credibly, of attempting to rape a 15-year-old girl in 1982—moreover because people believe this should be considered a disqualifying blight on his record. The thing that must happen is that those people must be defeated. That is the whole point. What must be shown to the whole world is that this, even this, cannot stop him. The bigger the outrage that can be brushed aside, the more thorough the defeat for the people who thought something, anything, might take precedence over this white man being the pick of another white man.

The argument is complete and utter nonsense. It also demonstrates how far the standard for both logic and journalism has fallen in the last twenty years.

[dolomite]

My question is this, are there any red blooded males on the Supreme Court that have not attempted to score with girls during high school or college years? I highly doubt it.
The hypocrisy in the Kavanaugh matter is absurd.

[jfish26]

Here, then, I'll excerpt the paragraph that I omitted:

Any number of grub-like Yale jurist-ghouls with diamond-edged ‘80s-dad hair and uniformly right-wing ideas about constitutional law could get confirmed to fill the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat, and once in that seat could be counted upon to plagiarize Anton Chigurh dialog into incumbent legal precedence for the next three decades. The earth contains no shortage of these. And so, in the aftermath of the discovery that Brett Kavanaugh, the one Donald Trump happened to nominate for the gig, quite likely attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in the summer of 1982 (and, perhaps less important though no less relevant, almost certainly lied to the Senate about the use of stolen materials to aid George W. Bush’s judicial nominees) and has been living comfortably with this fact about himself for the ensuing 36 years, it should be easy enough to withdraw his nomination and move along to the next crypto-Nazi cottage cheese sculpture in the pipeline. He’d breeze through confirmation, whoever he was: You could pretty much count on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s terminally third-brained centrist Democrats lining up to play themselves. And that would be a success, theoretically: A new, arch-conservative Supreme Court justice, possibly even one not tainted by a credible accusation that he once tried to rape a child.

So why, then, is Kavanaugh himself so important?

Is it because of his view on the relationship between the president and the law?

Because of the views of whatever silent benefactor he obviously has (which: it's ABSOLUTELY true that it could be entirely benign, like his family, but it's a complete mystery).

Is it because the GOP is incredibly worried that there's just not enough time to ram a non-rapey nominee through before the midterms? If that's the case, then I would suggest the GOP's priorities are...misplaced.

[ousdahl]

My question is this, are there any red blooded males on the Supreme Court that have not attempted to score with girls during high school or college years? I highly doubt it.
The hypocrisy in the Kavanaugh matter is absurd.

so there’s no difference between “attempting to score” and sexual assault?

[jfish26]

My question is this, are there any red blooded males on the Supreme Court that have not attempted to score with girls during high school or college years? I highly doubt it.
The hypocrisy in the Kavanaugh matter is absurd.

so there’s no difference between “attempting to score” and sexual assault?

Same way as "not giving him a lifetime appointment to the highest job in his field" is the exact same thing as "ruining his life."

[HouseDivided]

Here, then, I'll excerpt the paragraph that I omitted:

Any number of grub-like Yale jurist-ghouls with diamond-edged ‘80s-dad hair and uniformly right-wing ideas about constitutional law could get confirmed to fill the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat, and once in that seat could be counted upon to plagiarize Anton Chigurh dialog into incumbent legal precedence for the next three decades. The earth contains no shortage of these. And so, in the aftermath of the discovery that Brett Kavanaugh, the one Donald Trump happened to nominate for the gig, quite likely attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in the summer of 1982 (and, perhaps less important though no less relevant, almost certainly lied to the Senate about the use of stolen materials to aid George W. Bush’s judicial nominees) and has been living comfortably with this fact about himself for the ensuing 36 years, it should be easy enough to withdraw his nomination and move along to the next crypto-Nazi cottage cheese sculpture in the pipeline. He’d breeze through confirmation, whoever he was: You could pretty much count on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s terminally third-brained centrist Democrats lining up to play themselves. And that would be a success, theoretically: A new, arch-conservative Supreme Court justice, possibly even one not tainted by a credible accusation that he once tried to rape a child.

So why, then, is Kavanaugh himself so important?

Is it because of his view on the relationship between the president and the law?

Because of the views of whatever silent benefactor he obviously has (which: it's ABSOLUTELY true that it could be entirely benign, like his family, but it's a complete mystery).

Is it because the GOP is incredibly worried that there's just not enough time to ram a non-rapey nominee through before the midterms? If that's the case, then I would suggest the GOP's priorities are...misplaced.

Kavanaugh is important to both sides, which should be obvious. To the Dems, he is important because he represents an insurmountably conservative leaning in the Supreme Court who must be delayed until after mid-terms so that there is a chance of not confirming him. To the Republicans, he is important for the same reasons, only that they need to get him confirmed in case mid-terms go the wrong way.

But you and your lefty compadres already knew that.

[jfish26]

So: what happened, then? Did the GOP just blow this one in the layoff line, then, by nominating a candidate with a bad background?

[LAWRENCENATIVE2]

My question is this, are there any red blooded males on the Supreme Court that have not attempted to score with girls during high school or college years? I highly doubt it.
The hypocrisy in the Kavanaugh matter is absurd.

so there’s no difference between “attempting to score” and sexual assault?

or attempted rape...I don't care if the kid was 17 or as old as Bill Cosby. No one gets a pass.

[DCHawk1]

Here, then, I'll excerpt the paragraph that I omitted:

Any number of grub-like Yale jurist-ghouls with diamond-edged ‘80s-dad hair and uniformly right-wing ideas about constitutional law could get confirmed to fill the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat, and once in that seat could be counted upon to plagiarize Anton Chigurh dialog into incumbent legal precedence for the next three decades. The earth contains no shortage of these. And so, in the aftermath of the discovery that Brett Kavanaugh, the one Donald Trump happened to nominate for the gig, quite likely attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in the summer of 1982 (and, perhaps less important though no less relevant, almost certainly lied to the Senate about the use of stolen materials to aid George W. Bush’s judicial nominees) and has been living comfortably with this fact about himself for the ensuing 36 years, it should be easy enough to withdraw his nomination and move along to the next crypto-Nazi cottage cheese sculpture in the pipeline. He’d breeze through confirmation, whoever he was: You could pretty much count on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s terminally third-brained centrist Democrats lining up to play themselves. And that would be a success, theoretically: A new, arch-conservative Supreme Court justice, possibly even one not tainted by a credible accusation that he once tried to rape a child.

So why, then, is Kavanaugh himself so important?

Is it because of his view on the relationship between the president and the law?

Because of the views of whatever silent benefactor he obviously has (which: it's ABSOLUTELY true that it could be entirely benign, like his family, but it's a complete mystery).

Is it because the GOP is incredibly worried that there's just not enough time to ram a non-rapey nominee through before the midterms? If that's the case, then I would suggest the GOP's priorities are...misplaced.

That first sentence is flat out false. This is the 5-4 seat. And anyone whom Trump had nominated would be intentionally destroyed. If it were Amy Coney Barrett, for example, we'd be hearing about the "cult" to which she belonged or her long-ago affinity for gay-conversion therapy.

This is too important a seat for Dems to allow the confirmation of anyone with "right-wing ideas about constitutional law" (whatever that means). And just wait until RBG steps down...yikes!

That's the thing that makes this wholly frustrating and destructive. Whether or not Kavanaugh did the things he's accused of, he'd be accused of them anyway. The Farrow-Mayer piece is proof positive than nothing matters here except stopping the nomination and hoping for a few Senate seat pick ups in 6 weeks. That's a tragic disservice to Mrs. Ford. The new allegation is not credible. And it is so not credible as to discredit Ford's allegation right along with it. Which is pretty shitty.

[DCHawk1]

My question is this, are there any red blooded males on the Supreme Court that have not attempted to score with girls during high school or college years? I highly doubt it.
The hypocrisy in the Kavanaugh matter is absurd.

so there’s no difference between “attempting to score” and sexual assault?

Same way as "not giving him a lifetime appointment to the highest job in his field" is the exact same thing as "ruining his life."

You know as well as anyone that this would end his career. "If he's not good enough for SCOTUS, he's not good enough for anything!"

Moreover, if you want to know how these things can cause ripples far beyond one's career, you could ask the widowed Miguel Estrada.

[jfish26]

so there’s no difference between “attempting to score” and sexual assault?

Same way as "not giving him a lifetime appointment to the highest job in his field" is the exact same thing as "ruining his life."

You know as well as anyone that this would end his career. "If he's not good enough for SCOTUS, he's not good enough for anything!"

Moreover, if you want to know how these things can cause ripples far beyond one's career, you could ask the widowed Miguel Estrada.

Did I miss the part where he was nominated over his own objection?

[jfish26]

Here, then, I'll excerpt the paragraph that I omitted:

Any number of grub-like Yale jurist-ghouls with diamond-edged ‘80s-dad hair and uniformly right-wing ideas about constitutional law could get confirmed to fill the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat, and once in that seat could be counted upon to plagiarize Anton Chigurh dialog into incumbent legal precedence for the next three decades. The earth contains no shortage of these. And so, in the aftermath of the discovery that Brett Kavanaugh, the one Donald Trump happened to nominate for the gig, quite likely attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in the summer of 1982 (and, perhaps less important though no less relevant, almost certainly lied to the Senate about the use of stolen materials to aid George W. Bush’s judicial nominees) and has been living comfortably with this fact about himself for the ensuing 36 years, it should be easy enough to withdraw his nomination and move along to the next crypto-Nazi cottage cheese sculpture in the pipeline. He’d breeze through confirmation, whoever he was: You could pretty much count on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s terminally third-brained centrist Democrats lining up to play themselves. And that would be a success, theoretically: A new, arch-conservative Supreme Court justice, possibly even one not tainted by a credible accusation that he once tried to rape a child.

So why, then, is Kavanaugh himself so important?

Is it because of his view on the relationship between the president and the law?

Because of the views of whatever silent benefactor he obviously has (which: it's ABSOLUTELY true that it could be entirely benign, like his family, but it's a complete mystery).

Is it because the GOP is incredibly worried that there's just not enough time to ram a non-rapey nominee through before the midterms? If that's the case, then I would suggest the GOP's priorities are...misplaced.

That first sentence is flat out false. This is the 5-4 seat. And anyone whom Trump had nominated would be intentionally destroyed. If it were Amy Coney Barrett, for example, we'd be hearing about the "cult" to which she belonged or her long-ago affinity for gay-conversion therapy.

This is too important a seat for Dems to allow the confirmation of anyone with "right-wing ideas about constitutional law" (whatever that means). And just wait until RBG steps down...yikes!

That's the thing that makes this wholly frustrating and destructive. Whether or not Kavanaugh did the things he's accused of, he'd be accused of them anyway. The Farrow-Mayer piece is proof positive than nothing matters here except stopping the nomination and hoping for a few Senate seat pick ups in 6 weeks. That's a tragic disservice to Mrs. Ford. The new allegation is not credible. And it is so not credible as to discredit Ford's allegation right along with it. Which is pretty shitty.

To be honest, this is one of the only logical explanations for what's happened here: the GOP nominated a guy who both (a) ideologically would have been just fine, if confirmed, and (b) has a particular background that, if discovered and shot down, would make the next nominee look like a choirboy in comparison.

Now, it just seems like the timeline has started to get a little too compressed.

[HouseDivided]

So: what happened, then? Did the GOP just blow this one in the layoff line, then, by nominating a candidate with a bad background?

I don't think we've established that he has a "bad background". It is a supposition made by people with an agenda who are unbound by the constraints of concepts like truth, ethics, and justice. By your standard, anyone the Democrats don't like has a "bad background".