Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

[Zombie]

To anyone else wondering, like Trump, why women don't immediately report their assault-

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=#whyididntreport&src=typeahead_click

 

[The Thriller]

And find me a single anti life congressperson who supports limiting abortion in any way. It's pretty clear they just want to kill more babies.

But There already are limits in place and I can’t find a democrat who’s campaigning on eliminating all limits or procedures when it comes to getting an abortion. I’m fine with the limits we have today. But that’s not what’s happening. Republicans are shutting down abortion clinics, attacking planned parenthood, helping spread disinformation about this issue (remember how PP was supposedly encouraging people to get abortions and then chopping up aborted fetuses and making money), are promoting the absurd abstinence only nonsense, making it harder to get contraception, and are opening campaigning on making it illegal again.

your most prominent republicans are campaigning on overturning Roe v Wade. The president even campaigned on re-criminalizing abortion. Watch here:



Let’s please not call both sides “equally at fault” here.

Repubs have been on the wrong side of history since the 1960s on social issues and what we’re seeing is a backlash. They’re trying to “make America great again” by rolling back the advancements that the LGBT community, women, and minorities have made since the progressive era. Democrats merely trying to maintain a gay couple’s right to obtain service at a bakery or a woman’s right to get an abortion if the birth would cause “undue burden” on her isn’t the same as what republicans are doing today. Democrats are defending hard fought civil rights for minorities isn’t newrly the same as republicans blocking Garland and now scrambling to confirm Kavanaugh so they can roll back the past century.

Anyone arguing otherwise isn’t being intellectually honest.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

First of all let me be clear that I think it's likely Ford is telling the truth. I'm not sure what percentage I think it is, but maybe 90%? But that being said, I do think there's a chance that she is mistaken, and I do think there's a chance that she is lying. Mistaken, because people's memories are not always reliable, even about something this traumatic. Lying, because some people feel so strongly about the abortion and maybe some of his other positions that they would do radical things to sabotage his nomination. Either one could explain her calling for an FBI investigation. In the mistaken case, because she really believes what she's saying. In the lying case, because she's just trying to stall for time. Or thinks that calling for an investigation will help sow doubt on Kavenaugh with little risk of permanent negative ramifications on herself, at least when compared to the greater good (in her mind, in this scenario) that she is serving.

This is an excellent post. I couldn't put percentages on those three different possibilities, but I think any of them could be true. It could also be true that Kavenaugh is mis-remembering. He might have done exactly what she said, but no longer has any recollection of it at all (so he's not lying, but his version of events is incorrect). I don't think we will ever know which one of those options is what actually happened here.

I graduated from high school the same year that Kavenaugh did. If someone were to interview me today about a party back then I could tell them about events that I recall in general, and about different people who I had various impressions of at the time. I can recall some who I'd be proud to support as future supreme court justices and some who I would be appalled by... but I couldn't possibly have known the way that some people were going to grow, or that other people were going to whither. Thirty-five years is a long, long time. Are we really okay with a world where a mistake in high-school (or even the accusation of a mistake) is sufficient to derail a career? Is our goal to drive everyone with even a shred of conscience away from public service so that only the narcissists are left? (We're already doing a pretty good job of that, BTW.)

I think it's pretty obvious that this whole thing isn't really about that night at all. It's about people who believe this judge is aligned with their values, and people who believe this judge is not aligned with their values. If he had been nominated by a Democrat, and was positioned to get the votes he needed via a Democratic Congress, I have a feeling that the majority of the people who feel strongly about this situation would still feel just as strongly, only they would be supporting the opposite side of the argument that they are right now.

 

[Zombie]

Are we really okay with a world where a mistake in high-school (or even the accusation of a mistake) is sufficient to derail a career?

I would actually love to live in a world where young men have to think twice about the repercussions of sexual assault. This is an especially weird complaint to make because he hasn't had to face any consequences for his actions, up to this point. If not getting a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is the worst punishment he's going to face, I'm not going to shed too many tears.

Is our goal to drive everyone with even a shred of conscience away from public service so that only the narcissists are left? (We're already doing a pretty good job of that, BTW.)

I'm not sure how not appointing a guy who sexually assaulted someone is going to drive away people with a conscience. Kind of feels like it would be doing the opposite.

I think it's pretty obvious that this whole thing isn't really about that night at all. It's about people who believe this judge is aligned with their values, and people who believe this judge is not aligned with their values.

I think it's pretty obvious that both things can be true. People can have serious misgivings about his judicial opinions and believe he shouldn't be sat because he sexually assaulted a person. That doesn't mean their concern is in bad faith.

If he had been nominated by a Democrat, and was positioned to get the votes he needed via a Democratic Congress, I have a feeling that the majority of the people who feel strongly about this situation would still feel just as strongly, only they would be supporting the opposite side of the argument that they are right now.

Yeah that must be why Al Franken is still in the Senate. I mean guys, it was within our lifetimes that a Supreme Court nominee withdrew because he smoked pot one time. The world didn't end, and he moved on. Why the hell are we so damn determined to lower the bar for Brett ****ing Kavenaugh??

 

[The Thriller]

The disinformation being spread by Fox News is so disgusting.

 

[The Thriller]

And this is why 2/3 assaults go unreported

 

[The Thriller]

I would actually love to live in a world where young men have to think twice about the repercussions of sexual assault. This is an especially weird complaint to make because he hasn't had to face any consequences for his actions, up to this point. If not getting a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is the worst punishment he's going to face, I'm not going to shed too many tears.


I'm not sure how not appointing a guy who sexually assaulted someone is going to drive away people with a conscience. Kind of feels like it would be doing the opposite.



I think it's pretty obvious that both things can be true. People can have serious misgivings about his judicial opinions and believe he shouldn't be sat because he sexually assaulted a person. That doesn't mean their concern is in bad faith.



Yeah that must be why Al Franken is still in the Senate. I mean guys, it was within our lifetimes that a Supreme Court nominee withdrew because he smoked pot one time. The world didn't end, and he moved on. Why the hell are we so damn determined to lower the bar for Brett ****ing Kavenaugh??

Great post.

 

[Zombie]

And this is why 2/3 assaults go unreported

The disinformation being spread by Fox News is so disgusting.

Clearly the White House is going with the kitchen sink defense. It didn't happen because she took too long to report it, also it did happen, but it was actually this other guy who did it.

Something else that's super fishy is this Ed Whelan guy named the fourth individual who was supposedly present (to this thing that never happened, mind) in his insane Twitter thread. That woman had not been named publicly. How did he know who she was?

Oh, and he was caught out looking at Dr Fords LinkedIn profile before she herself had come out publically, last Sunday.

I think it's high time for this whole circus to come to an end.

 

[Zombie]

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/[object Object]
This is whole article is a really great indictment of right wing politics, but this bit really stood out.

An example: 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.

But that would not be enough. 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.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I would actually love to live in a world where young men have to think twice about the repercussions of sexual assault. This is an especially weird complaint to make because he hasn't had to face any consequences for his actions, up to this point. If not getting a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is the worst punishment he's going to face, I'm not going to shed too many tears.


I'm not sure how not appointing a guy who sexually assaulted someone is going to drive away people with a conscience. Kind of feels like it would be doing the opposite.



I think it's pretty obvious that both things can be true. People can have serious misgivings about his judicial opinions and believe he shouldn't be sat because he sexually assaulted a person. That doesn't mean their concern is in bad faith.



Yeah that must be why Al Franken is still in the Senate. I mean guys, it was within our lifetimes that a Supreme Court nominee withdrew because he smoked pot one time. The world didn't end, and he moved on. Why the hell are we so damn determined to lower the bar for Brett ****ing Kavenaugh??

Lowering the bar because it's not okay to be accused?

Regarding your conscience comment, would you put yourself in a position to be judged by the nation like Kavenaugh has? I wouldn't, not because I've done anything I'm embarrassed of, but because politics is so dirty that the opposition would try to destroy me for not agreeing with them, and they would stop at nothing. That's where we are. We live in a world where if you can be accused of something in your teens then you can be disqualified for life. Nobody is safe in a world like that, but guess who is the most okay with it. Not people with a conscience like you seem to believe. Narcissists.

Also, you're crazy to hold the Dems up as some sort of example of morality just because they've recently sacrificed a few of their own on the altar of the metoo movement. There are many examples of creeps who the Dems have looked the other way on (Clinton, multiple Kennedys, etc.) and I can practically guarantee that there will be future Dem candidates who are going to be soiled by nothing more than accusations. Sadly, that's how politics works these days.

 

[Zombie]

Lowering the bar because it's not okay to be accused?

Regarding your conscience comment, would you put yourself in a position to be judged by the nation like Kavenaugh has? I wouldn't, not because I've done anything I'm embarrassed of, but because politics is so dirty that the opposition would try to destroy me for not agreeing with them, and they would stop at nothing. That's where we are. We live in a world where if you can be accused of something in your teens then you can be disqualified for life. Nobody is safe in a world like that, but guess who is the most okay with it. Not people with a conscience like you seem to believe. Narcissists.

This is some next level ********. Nobody is safe in a world where we disqualify men from lifetime positions of power and authority over the entire nation because they have been credibly accused of sexual assault? Tell me, how exactly is that making the world unsafe? The position of Supreme Court Justice is remarkably powerful and long lasting, therefore the justices we appoint should live up to a remarkable standard.

There's no reason that this particular man is owed a seat on the court, there are literally hundreds of men with similar views that would be confirmed in a heartbeat. Frankly it's beginning to feel as though it's because he has been accused, credibly, of sexual assault that you guys are so ****ing determined to seat him. Even though it's not uncommon at all for presidents to nominate justices that don't get confirmed, for some reason this guy must be, because anything else would be losing, somehow.

Also, you're crazy to hold the Dems up as some sort of example of morality just because they've recently sacrificed a few of their own on the altar of the metoo movement. There are many examples of creeps who the Dems have looked the other way on (Clinton, multiple Kennedys, etc.) and I can practically guarantee that there will be future Dem candidates who are going to be soiled by nothing more than accusations. Sadly, that's how politics works these days.

So what you're saying is that because in the past Democrats (nor Republicans) weren't policing their own, any current or future attempts to do so are done 'merely at the altar of the me too movement.' Even if that were true, how is that worse than Republicans continuing to nominate, defend and elect sexual abusers?

 

[JAZZGASM]

Good post. Pretty much how I see it too. (I'm probably a little more on the pro choice side than you but we are in the same ballpark)

I would actually love to live in a world where young men have to think twice about the repercussions of sexual assault. This is an especially weird complaint to make because he hasn't had to face any consequences for his actions, up to this point. If not getting a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is the worst punishment he's going to face, I'm not going to shed too many tears.


I'm not sure how not appointing a guy who sexually assaulted someone is going to drive away people with a conscience. Kind of feels like it would be doing the opposite.



I think it's pretty obvious that both things can be true. People can have serious misgivings about his judicial opinions and believe he shouldn't be sat because he sexually assaulted a person. That doesn't mean their concern is in bad faith.



Yeah that must be why Al Franken is still in the Senate. I mean guys, it was within our lifetimes that a Supreme Court nominee withdrew because he smoked pot one time. The world didn't end, and he moved on. Why the hell are we so damn determined to lower the bar for Brett ****ing Kavenaugh??

If there were photographic proof of Kavanaugh assaulting a woman it might be a different story. Clinton was accused of raping Broaddrick. He also was accused of visiting Epstein's Orgy Island by a 15 yr old prostitute on the island. No one seems to care about that. Trump is just as bad if not worse.

The problem is who we appoint as our leaders, and we have two corrupt parties that are to blame. And we let it happen. We get what we deserve.

 

[Zombie]

If there were photographic proof of Kavanaugh assaulting a woman it might be a different story. Clinton was accused of raping Broaddrick. He also was accused of visiting Epstein's Orgy Island by a 15 yr old prostitute on the island. No one seems to care about that. Trump is just as bad if not worse.

The problem is who we appoint as our leaders, and we have two corrupt parties that are to blame. And we let it happen. We get what we deserve.

By that standard no one would ever be held accountable for sexual assault. Photographic proof?! Are you serious?

Anyway, plenty of people do in fact give a **** about Clinton's misconduct. If he was nominated for the Supreme Court I would have the exact same response. No ****ing way.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Yeah she's super smart. She saw this political moment years before anyone else and decided to begin implementing her master plan.

She knew that the racist rapist apologists would take over government once the Obamimator was gone so she hatched her plan...

She started off small by telling her "marriage counselor " a tall tale that she knew she would need 6 years later but fearing (rightfully so) that Republicans would dismiss her anyway she built a time machine.

She went back in time and altered yearbooks to make it seem like Kavanaugh was a giant douche. She threatened a fellow classmate to say that she heard something about it over 30 years ago.

Srs

There is enough corroborating evidence here without an investigation that any reasonable person would take it seriously.

But hey, why be reasonable person? Sounds like a boring loser person thing to be.

That's one of the weakest strawman arguments I've heard. What I'm objecting to is the politicizing of this alleged incident and the posturing on both sides. The timing of this information coming out, the delay in releasing information by Feinstein, the fact that Ford's letter has not been released to members of the judiciary committee, the lack of a police investigation for over 35 years, the continued lack of facts that can be investigated (such as alleged time and place), and the conflating of obvious political actors with a serious criminal allegation--all point to the fact that Democrats want to use this politically to try to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, irrespective of whether or not a crime has actually been committed.

This "He's a rapist!" innuendo being echoed by Democrats, along with this obtuse diatribe that "Old white men are abusing women!" before facts have been ascertained is nothing but hollow and dirty politics that show no regard for either Ford or Kavanaugh. They're trying to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation, whether rightly or wrongly, for political capital, and it's showing the worst aspects of identity politics that the Democrats have been promoting.

It doesn't matter what anyone on this thread believes happened or might have happened. What matters are the ascertainable and provable facts. Until those are available, both sides should shut up and not presume guilt or innocence.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This is some next level ********. Nobody is safe in a world where we disqualify men from lifetime positions of power and authority over the entire nation because they have been credibly accused of sexual assault? Tell me, how exactly is that making the world unsafe? The position of Supreme Court Justice is remarkably powerful and long lasting, therefore the justices we appoint should live up to a remarkable standard.

There's no reason that this particular man is owed a seat on the court, there are literally hundreds of men with similar views that would be confirmed in a heartbeat. Frankly it's beginning to feel as though it's because he has been accused, credibly, of sexual assault that you guys are so ****ing determined to seat him. Even though it's not uncommon at all for presidents to nominate justices that don't get confirmed, for some reason this guy must be, because anything else would be losing, somehow.


So what you're saying is that because in the past Democrats (nor Republicans) weren't policing their own, any current or future attempts to do so are done 'merely at the altar of the me too movement.' Even if that were true, how is that worse than Republicans continuing to nominate, defend and elect sexual abusers?

Interesting inclusion of "credibly." Not sure where you're getting that.

I do not think sexual abuse should be tolerated, but when the Dems elected a sexual predator in chief people who felt like I did were repeatedly told that his sex life was irrelevant and none of our business. Even in the most recent election we were told that Hillary's treatment of Bill's victims was a non-issue. Now that it's expedient to try to meet their political ends suddenly the rule is that all you need is an accusation?

 

[♪alt13]

That's one of the weakest strawman arguments I've heard. What I'm objecting to is the politicizing of this alleged incident and the posturing on both sides. The timing of this information coming out, the delay in releasing information by Feinstein, the fact that Ford's letter has not been released to members of the judiciary committee, the lack of a police investigation for over 35 years, the continued lack of facts that can be investigated (such as alleged time and place), and the conflating of obvious political actors with a serious criminal allegation--all point to the fact that Democrats want to use this politically to try to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, irrespective of whether or not a crime has actually been committed.

This "He's a rapist!" innuendo being echoed by Democrats, along with this obtuse diatribe that "Old white men are abusing women!" before facts have been ascertained is nothing but hollow and dirty politics that show no regard for either Ford or Kavanaugh. They're trying to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation, whether rightly or wrongly, for political capital, and it's showing the worst aspects of identity politics that the Democrats have been promoting.

It doesn't matter what anyone on this thread believes happened or might have happened. What matters are the ascertainable and provable facts. Until those are available, both sides should shut up and not presume guilt or innocence.

Lol

The disgusting thing is Republicans trying to rush this dude through despite very serious allegations, that have been corroborated by one woman so far despite there being precedent for an FBI investigation(Thomas) and just a couple years after they delayed a vote on a nominee for nine months (Garland)!

Who is playing politics?

 

[Zombie]

Interesting inclusion of "credibly." Not sure where you're getting that.

I do not think sexual abuse should be tolerated, but when the Dems elected a sexual predator in chief people who felt like I did were repeatedly told that his sex life was irrelevant and none of our business. Even in the most recent election we were told that Hillary's treatment of Bill's victims was a non-issue. Now that it's expedient to try to meet their political ends suddenly the rule is that all you need is an accusation?

Her accusation is a credible one. She doesn't stand to gain from the accusation and has plenty to lose. She placed another witness in the room, she knew the accused previously. She brought up the accusation to her therapist years ago. She is welcoming an FBI investigation into her claims. All those things contribute to her credibility.

 

[Zombie]

Lol

The disgusting thing is Republicans trying to rush this dude through despite very serious allegations, that have been corroborated by one woman so far despite there being precedent for an FBI investigation(Thomas) and just a couple years after they delayed a vote on a nominee for nine months (Garland)!

Who is playing politics?

What was Merrick Garland's crime again?

Oh yeah, he happened to be nominated by a Democrat.

That those on the right have the gall to cry foul over Kavenaugh's nom being held up for a legitimate reason, is absolutely insane to me.

You guys don't get to play that card. Sorry, that ship sailed when McConnell threw precedent and process out the window for purely political reasons with zero pretext to the contrary.

 

[JAZZGASM]

By that standard no one would ever be held accountable for sexual assault. Photographic proof?! Are you serious?

Anyway, plenty of people do in fact give a **** about Clinton's misconduct. If he was nominated for the Supreme Court I would have the exact same response. No ****ing way.

My point was Stuart Smally was caught in the act. Much harder to downplay. If someone just alleged it with not witnesses I doubt there would have been a push for him to resign.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Her accusation is a credible one. She doesn't stand to gain from the accusation and has plenty to lose. She placed another witness in the room, she knew the accused previously. She brought up the accusation to her therapist years ago. She is welcoming an FBI investigation into her claims. All those things contribute to her credibility.

Lol. There is not one of these things that I could not do if I made a claim against someone else. We know very little about her claim, but one thing we do know is that she didn't give the therapist a name. I am not saying that her claim is false, but I am saying that making a false claim is definitely possible. And she does stand to gain. She's already a hero to many.