SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[kuronosan]

No, you don't ask questions like that.

You talk to them about their story, corroborate the evidence, talk to her psychiatrist, and gauge her trustworthiness accordingly.

Why did it take Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein stories decades to come out?

Maybe that should be your first question before you get out of your armchair investigation office.

[Salodin]

I presume you mean the Democrats are the side that wants to allow an investigation, since they're the ones that make me feel icky. Let's see where we disagree?

- Republicans offered her a hearing. They offered to have it be either public, or private. They offered to fly people to her home, so it can be done there. Makes me think they want to hear what she has to say.
- There's a disagreement over having the FBI investigate. On one hand, the alleged crime (I say alleged because there's an accusation and a denial, so I'm using the term alleged crime) would it not be a state matter? Or on the other hand, since Supreme Court nominees are vetted/investigated by the FBI, would this not fall under FBI jurisdiction? I am however certain both the left and right have investigators, and if he's been vetted already, I believe, 6 separate times as he rose up the ranks, was that not thoroughly done? If the FBI didn't find anything previously, what are they going to find now?
- What is anyone going to be able to find from a 36 year old crime? This is possibly an impossible task. There was a woman who posted on Facebook that she heard about it at the time, it was talked about in school during the school year, when it happened, but it supposedly happened during summer. I've seen this in a couple of places, and I can buy "It happened during summer, and was talked about during the next school year.", and I can also buy that it's fabricated, someone who just wants to stand up in support. I don't know. Could the FBI find something? Possibly, without an investigation, we don't know. Is it remotely likely that they're going to find anything factual or provable from 36 years ago? Hyper doubtful.
- You can't take politics out of this. Any delay in nominating him is a benefit to the Democrats, and they'll fight tooth, claw and nail to stop it regardless of veracity.

I'll go down the list.

-They offered a hearing. That's great. She agreed to show up to a hearing. That's great too. Now they're working out the details. She is determined to testify next week, Republicans want it on monday even though they cant give a good reason for it. She is not a politician, shes a university professor. She needs time to prepare on top of making sure her family is safe from her new spotlight. Incase you didn't know, reporting says they had to leave their home cause of threats. Aside from this, what's the problem here? I think we can both agree shes being reasonable when she says she'll testify next week but not on monday.

-Here is where our big bad faith discussion comes in. There is no disagreement on the FBI investigating, Republicans just dont want to do it cause, at best, it does nothing for them or at worst destroys their chances of getting Kavanaugh through. There is no upside for them, so politically why do it? In 1991, when Justice Thomas was up for nomination, after the FBI did their investigation into him Anita Hill accused him of sexual impropriety (might be work place related but I'm not sure). Some of these same Republicans, including the head of this very committee, had the FBI investigate the new claim. It took 3 days, they did their hearing, and moved on. The precedent is for the FBI to investigate. To retort to your "well dems and reps have investigstors", no one wants a biased investigator being paid to come up with a story. The closest well get to non partisanship on what the facts are is to have the FBI investigate. Full stop. The FBI didn't find out about this because she told no one except a therapist (who has dated notes), her husband, and recently some friends. Do you really find it odd that a woman didnt share with many people her attempted rape? It's not odd at all, just fyi.

- You are correct, we will never know without a shadow of a doubt whether he did this or not. But it speaks to his character. How many other woman might have a similar story but are too scared to speak up after seeing how people treated Hill or Fords? No one is jailing this guy for a crime based on he said she said, we just dont want a rapist on the court. Her allegations are very credible, and the defense against it has been quite lacking.

-just cause we cant take politics out of this doesn't mean we can think critically of how best to proceed. What excuse is there for the FBI to not investigate this claim when they've already done so in this same situation before? Why is there a rush to get this done on Monday when these same Republicans had no problem holding a seat open for over a year? You dont have to answer that, we both know they're acting in bad faith on that part.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[arus2001]

Well, you're free to join the rest of us in the camp that it might not be a political stunt due 2012 documentation of her seeing a shrink about it. Unless you wanna tinfoil hat she's a precog, too.

Otherwise, her life has been upended. The very things she worried about happening has, in part, because we're dealing with the demographic of deplorables that had no problem voting in the pussy grabber.

[Day]

i like the new guy

[kuronosan]

BUT WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO COME FORWARD?

Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with death threats, power, and fear?

[Salodin]

Shukudai, she didnt tell her therapist until decades later because she wasn't ready to. That's perfectly reasonable and not uncommon.

I think the more important question is why is that a ding to her credibility? All that matters is she did it before he was nominated to scotus, when he was actually thrown into the spotlight. She literally talked about this attempted rape before Kavanaugh was relevant to the scotus. That's the part that makes this credible. A part of your "95%" of you will.

I guess my question to you is, is she in your 95%, or your 5%? Also, did you get a chance to listen to those podcasts?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

I like this new guy too. He doesn't resort to whataboutism or one line trolls, and actually tries to have a discussion on the matter at hand.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Yuri-G]

Day, maybe it's time to step back and breathe a minute. The way you're talking about this, I expect better of you (when you're not trolling).

[Day]

He'll learn

[Day]

Day, maybe it's time to step back and breathe a minute. The way you're talking about this, I expect better of you (when you're not trolling).

I'm fine dude. TY though.

[Yuri-G]

I'm fine dude. TY though.

You're not. You're better than this. But anyway, I've said my piece.

[Mertron]

make telling the new guy to get out great again

[Zealot]

I presume you mean the Democrats are the side that wants to allow an investigation, since they're the ones that make me feel icky. Let's see where we disagree?

- Republicans offered her a hearing. They offered to have it be either public, or private. They offered to fly people to her home, so it can be done there. Makes me think they want to hear what she has to say.
- There's a disagreement over having the FBI investigate. On one hand, the alleged crime (I say alleged because there's an accusation and a denial, so I'm using the term alleged crime) would it not be a state matter? Or on the other hand, since Supreme Court nominees are vetted/investigated by the FBI, would this not fall under FBI jurisdiction? I am however certain both the left and right have investigators, and if he's been vetted already, I believe, 6 separate times as he rose up the ranks, was that not thoroughly done? If the FBI didn't find anything previously, what are they going to find now?
- What is anyone going to be able to find from a 36 year old crime? This is possibly an impossible task. There was a woman who posted on Facebook that she heard about it at the time, it was talked about in school during the school year, when it happened, but it supposedly happened during summer. I've seen this in a couple of places, and I can buy "It happened during summer, and was talked about during the next school year.", and I can also buy that it's fabricated, someone who just wants to stand up in support. I don't know. Could the FBI find something? Possibly, without an investigation, we don't know. Is it remotely likely that they're going to find anything factual or provable from 36 years ago? Hyper doubtful.
- You can't take politics out of this. Any delay in nominating him is a benefit to the Democrats, and they'll fight tooth, claw and nail to stop it regardless of veracity.

I've been through an FBI background check.

They obtain a list of places you've lived and worked over the past 10 years, from you, and interview people from each location to confirm that you did live/work there during the time stated and weren't using drugs or committing crimes.

It's inconceivable that this would have come up in a background check if it happened while he was in high school and no police report was ever filed.

[Salodin]

I've been through an FBI background check.

They obtain a list of places you've lived and worked over the past 10 years, from you, and interview people from each location to confirm that you did live/work there during the time stated and weren't using drugs or committing crimes.

It's inconceivable that this would have come up in a background check if it happened while he was in high school and no police report was ever filed.

Hey look at that, a valid reason for why this wouldn't come up on a background check.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[kuronosan]

From a politician, no less.

[archibaldcrane]

From a politician, no less.

(running for HOA board doesn't make you a politician)

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Day]

lmao i was gonna say it but would have seemed more mean than funny

[Tymon]

Shukudai, she didnt tell her therapist until decades later because she wasn't ready to. That's perfectly reasonable and not uncommon.

I think the more important question is why is that a ding to her credibility? All that matters is she did it before he was nominated to scotus, when he was actually thrown into the spotlight. She literally talked about this attempted rape before Kavanaugh was relevant to the scotus. That's the part that makes this credible. A part of your "95%" of you will.

I guess my question to you is, is she in your 95%, or your 5%? Also, did you get a chance to listen to those podcasts?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I've seen a "defense" to this. I guess the theory is that Democrats have had this percolating in the political Keurig since 2012 because of Mitt Romney running for office.

See, Romney had floated Kavanaugh as a SCOTUS recommendation during his campaign, back when Scalia and Ginsburg were facing retirement rumors. Incidentally this is the same year she reported this to her psychiatrist.

Logically, this means that Diane Feinstein and Lisa Banks have been preparing a smear campaign against Kavanaugh as a contingency plan for Romney's election.

I mean, if you already believe the vast Deep State conspiracy to begin with, this isn't all that much of a stretch to you.

[kuronosan]

(running for HOA board doesn't make you a politician)

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

But aspiring to be president or representative kinda does. I'm aware he's not actually holding an office.

[Zealot]

I mean it's not like my ambitions are a secret.

Also did I tell you guys the guy running against me in that race tried to have me disbarred? After I responded to the disciplinary complaint they sent him back a letter basically saying "please don't waste the board's time with this bullshit."