SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) II: Rape Isn't On My Calendar

[Tyche]

I'm sure it's just bitches being cray and not the overwhelming PTSD they suffer from.

[Cichy]

Because cray is only reserved for white men, no women ever been cray or lied

[Heavencloud]

If you think Ford was lying I'm happy to explain why it is likely you are wrong.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

we're listening

[Zealot]

we're listening

Are you?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

I only ask because most of these guys are new so I don't know them but you are for sure a 100% disingenuous piece of shit so, reassure me of your intentions.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Heavencloud]

Are you?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

yeah haven't heard a good reason yet but open to it

[Zealot]

Fine, feel like I'm wasting my time but here we go. Looking forward to your answer which will inevitably begin with "lol" and include at least one reference to George Soros.

One, the demand for proof or evidence or whatever is in such crushingly bad faith that it's hard to even take seriously. When an event is so attenuated in time there's certainly no physical evidence left and all we have to rely on are witness accounts. Despite what Kavanaugh said while lying under oath, the other three people named did not contradict Ford. Two of them said they don't remember such a party, the third said she didn't either but she believes Ford. When I was 3? Maybe 5? I don't remember exactly when, but I was in a car accident. So this was 30 years ago, maybe more. I can still hear the sound the window made when it broke, I can remember the sight of my mom crying in the front seat and my grandmother turning around to check on me and my brother. I don't remember how we got home. I only remember a truck dropped us off, not who it was or how it got there or how long we were in it. I do remember it was green. And my mom's car was a Nissan. All that stuck with me for the past three decades and to this day people tell me I'm a cautious driver. I am, because when I sit down in a car I relive the accident. So when I hear her tell what happened, it makes complete sense to me what she does and does not remember and how it affects her life. If it doesn't for you, ask yourself what level of proof would be good enough to satisfy you, and now compare that to the level of proof you needed to be completely certain Seth Rich was murdered by Hillary operatives.

Two, the question of "why didn't she come forward sooner" has been asked and answered by tens of thousands of women over the course of the past week so I leave it to you to wade into #WhyIDidntReport because I'm not big on subjecting myself to that kind of misery twice. And once you do and immediately begin deciding that all of these are the 5% of rape cases that are falsely reported keep in mind that the 5% figure comes from reported sexual assaults which are estimated to be as low as 10% of all actual assaults (because once again, women don't report) which means that the actual number of false accusations is closer to 0.005%. I also freely invite you to take a deep dive into 80s culture and ask yourself if at the time she would have even thought a crime was committed. Shit, I don't even tell people the car accident story because it's embarrassing to carry something like that with you.

Three, given that the FBI investigation was apparently directed to ignore the fact that Kavanaugh tampered with witnesses in the Ramirez case, had former roommates and colleagues speaking directly to the fact that stories he told about his non-partisanship and drinking habits were lies told under oath, and that analysis of the two testimonies demonstrates that he avoided answering any questions at all whenever possible, you're left with he said/ she said. Of course, this also means ignoring that neither testimony could be corroborated because Congress refused to hear testimony from anyone who could corroborate. But that's fine, I'm allowing that. Her testimony versus his.

None of that tells us who is and isn't telling the truth. I mean, we can make inferences based on that we know one of the parties involved lied repeatedly about other things, but let's just take them both completely at face value.

We don't know. And we can't know. I mean, potentially we can, but for reasons I certainly can't explain the Senate refused to allow any kind of open process on the matter, who could fathom why that would be. But we do not know.

So when you say you don't believe her, you're basing that on nothing. And I'm granting that if you take out all other surrounding circumstances and only process what's most important, kind of like how a brain processes trauma, I don't know she's telling the truth. But neither of us in this scenario can know.

So when you say you she was lying, you're basing that on nothing but a heartfelt desire to really have a man who is an accused sexual assaulter/probable alcoholic/definite perjurer sit on the most exclusive Court in the country and punish liberals for 30 years.

Inb4 a series of articles with clickbait headlines or videos about how she's obviously a lying lizardperson because of her posture.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Cichy]

Ok you point out inconsistencies in his story but what about things like this https://www.wsj.com/articles/grassle...36546?mod=e2tw
Basically, Grassley asked for the documents from her therapy sessions which she made available to Washington Post. Non of those documents were seen by senate and her lawyers did not provide them even after 3 requests. There's also interview with her ex boyfriend that contradicts some of her statements.

[Zealot]

The ex-boyfriend's statement contradicts nothing. It's being held up with a headline to try and say she lied about prepping a friend to beat a polygraph test when the actual statement says that once 20 years ago a friend of hers had to take one and asked her what it was all about, and so she explained how one works and told her friend not to be nervous.

And I don't have a good explanation for why her lawyers wouldn't release the documents to the Senate, beyond, I mean, I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and say that if I were giving people notes from therapy sessions I know they'd be safer in the hands of the Washington Post than the United States Senate if I wanted to make sure the information in them wasn't abused. But that IS just speculation so no, I can't say for certain why not. Nor can I say why the Senate Republicans have yet to produce over 90% of Kavanaugh's record from his days at the White House, or why they refused to call on witnesses who could corroborate either story, or why the FBI was not given the time or direction to look into multiple witnesses who came forward to contradict Kavanaugh's representations.

What I CAN say is that it's a troubling and perhaps disgusting standard to hold to say that 100% of her story has to survive every level of scrutiny, and if 1% of it falls into question than the other 99% must be lies, but that 50% or more of his story can be questionable at best and he gets the full benefit of the doubt.

[Gredival]

It wasn't a "partisan rant" it was a man defending himself from a baseless accusation because the other side doesn't like who nominated him.

Exactly why the Dems leveled equally false accusations against Neil Gorsuch, who went to the same prep school

Gred too

I endorsed no such thing. I just said it's the logical escalation to getting rid of the filibuster. Getting rid of the filibuster was a power play designed to take advantage of a narrow window of SCOTUS openings. The fix is to make that window a lot larger.

I for one believe in political norms though which is why I am an establishment stooge. Others however believe that escalation is necessary given the GOP's willingness to bend the rules to their advantage at every turn.

But somehow you'll still blame this on the Democrats being the same as the GOP because they didn't pick Bernie, even though letting the GOP have SCOTUS for 20 years was definitely not what Bernie wanted, as part of your low energy troll attempt to frustrate everyone.

[Greatguardian]

Ok you point out inconsistencies in his story but what about things like this https://www.wsj.com/articles/grassle...36546?mod=e2tw
Basically, Grassley asked for the documents from her therapy sessions which she made available to Washington Post. Non of those documents were seen by senate and her lawyers did not provide them even after 3 requests. There's also interview with her ex boyfriend that contradicts some of her statements.

Weren't these the documents that Dr. Ford's lawyers attempted to send Grassley several times before the hearing only to be told that he didn't think they were necessary? I seem to recall this coming up during the hearing itself, when he asked for the documents and her lawyers mentioned they'd been trying to get his office to accept them.

[Zealot]

Sir are you accusing a U.S. Senator of acting in bad faith.

[kuronosan]

Weren't these the documents that Dr. Ford's lawyers attempted to send Grassley several times before the hearing only to be told that he didn't think they were necessary? I seem to recall this coming up during the hearing itself, when he asked for the documents and her lawyers mentioned they'd been trying to get his office to accept them.

Yes, they were. And yes, that's exactly what happened. The lawyers said this several times and during the hearing Grassley was like "yo send them". I mean, he can't lie on live television but outside of that he can just say "nobody sent us stuff" and people can believe him.

[Fiye]

Yes, they were. And yes, that's exactly what happened. The lawyers said this several times and during the hearing Grassley was like "yo send them". I mean, he can't lie on live television but outside of that he can just say "nobody sent us stuff" and people can believe him.

Or the exchange when it was suddenly revealed Grassly was more than willing to go to Cali for Ford's testimony but somehow that magicially didn't get get communicated.

Others however believe that escalation is necessary given the GOP's willingness to bend the rules to their advantage at every turn.

To clarify my desire to pack the courts (Or Impeachment of at the very least Kavanaugh). It'll be necessary if we want sufficient change on the federal level (Abolishing (And Prosecuting) ICE, Medicare for All, and any number of things whatever dem president in 2020 tries to make happen with a supposedly dem congress.



Anyway fuck yall.

[Byrthnoth]

I don't think packing the court is strategically smart or particularly viable as a solution.

Impeaching Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas is what should be done, but it requires 66 votes in the Senate and thus likely won't happen in the near future. They are more likely to be murdered than impeached.

The lowest resistance path at this point is probably also the one that should be pursued from a legal standpoint. If we all agree that these constitutional literalists are fucking things up, then we should change the Constitution via amendments. Brett would almost certainly not change any votes based on the Constitution changing, but Clarence Thomas might.

[Fiye]

I don't think packing the court is strategically smart or particularly viable as a solution.

Impeaching Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas is what should be done, but it requires 66 votes in the Senate and thus likely won't happen in the near future. They are more likely to be murdered than impeached.

I agree that packing the courts isn't strategically smart or viable since the moment the Dems lose control of the office we'll see ourselves in a situation with republicans ready to ram down their shit up our orifices.

But its the only thing that can be proactively done aside from waiting for some nutjob to take Kavanaugh to the ball game or hoping natural causes takes it tool on a conservative justice.

However I expect Chuck Schumer to restore the filibuster before seating RGB's replacement in 2020 (Assuming she lives to that point) because at this point I believe him to be politically incapable because the only thing he's capable of doing is talking to the fucking Baileys.



lol the ratio.

[Gredival]

The idea that Schumer, Durbin, and Pelosi aren't any bit as smart as McConnell and Ryan is absurd. The difference is just that Dems 1) don't engage in rank hypocrisy and 2) don't have the same luxury of claiming victory by just grinding everything to a halt since as the progressive party they are affirmatively trying to get things changed vs. just mucking up the system in the name of small government.

[Day]

I could write up a post w all the Fords inconsistencies and how DiFi and Fords lawyers were either incompetent or shady, but honestly no one is changing their minds at this point. Truth is we will never know becuase it is 100% he said/ she said. Fords named witness to the party said she has never mett Brett and insisted she wasnt there, (later said she believed Ford but maintain her statement after their friend Mclean pressured her per WSJ). So I dont think well ever really know 100%. I said it on the day of the hearing, she sounds sincere but so does he, imo.

A lot of people put weight in Fords story due to Ramieriez and Swetniks claims, but I think if you read those stories objectively and are honest with yourself they dont really hold up. I saw the statement about him calling his friends about Ramieriez but she herself was calling around their group trying to remember if it was him, and the New Yorker asked him for comment, so like obviously he knew someone was about to accuse him of something, so no shock he wants some defense of his character.

I think its fair to take a step back and look at the last 35 years of his life, and from what I can tell hes been an upstanding citizen, and decent judge. I would be way more inclined to believe he was some kind of "serial sexual assaulter" had there been any whiff of this in his adult life, and Im sure Farrow, FBI, etc would have found it long before September if they could.

My opinion is obv in the minority on BG, but this was a public "trial" of a man in case that didnt have enough evidence to actually go to trial. Play kangaroo court games and win kangaroo court prizes.

The whole thing was disgusting honestly as drama filled as this circus has been I honestly hope I never have to witness this kind of thing again.

[Infini]

Sir are you accusing a U.S. Senator of acting in bad faith.

Isnt that the modus operandi these days with the whole US political system?

[kuronosan]

I could write up a post w all the Fords inconsistencies and how DiFi and Fords lawyers were either incompetent or shady, but honestly no one is changing their minds at this point. Truth is we will never know becuase it is 100% he said/ she said. Fords named witness to the party said she has never mett Brett and insisted she wasnt there, (later said she believed Ford but maintain her statement after their friend Mclean pressured her per WSJ). So I dont think well ever really know 100%. I said it on the day of the hearing, she sounds sincere but so does he, imo.

A lot of people put weight in Fords story due to Ramieriez and Swetniks claims, but I think if you read those stories objectively and are honest with yourself they dont really hold up. I saw the statement about him calling his friends about Ramieriez but she herself was calling around their group trying to remember if it was him, and the New Yorker asked him for comment, so like obviously he knew someone was about to accuse him of something, so no shock he wants some defense of his character.

I think its fair to take a step back and look at the last 35 years of his life, and from what I can tell hes been an upstanding citizen, and decent judge. I would be way more inclined to believe he was some kind of "serial sexual assaulter" had there been any whiff of this in his adult life, and Im sure Farrow, FBI, etc would have found it long before September if they could.

My opinion is obv in the minority on BG, but this was a public "trial" of a man in case that didnt have enough evidence to actually go to trial. Play kangaroo court games and win kangaroo court prizes.

The whole thing was disgusting honestly as drama filled as this circus has been I honestly hope I never have to witness this kind of thing again.

I appreciate your writing a sincere post for a change, but even if we ignore the he said vs. she said dynamic he lied under oath and lost his shit. That is the real issue here.