Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation Hearing Now with Poll

[Valrifell]

I dont think it can get more aggressive than how it is now and how it's been.

Every day I tell myself Trump can't get any worse, and every day I'm proven wrong.

If he still surprises you this far out...

[Valrifell]

She literally only told her therapist. There's no way for the Dems to find this info, it slipped by the FBI's background check ffs. Occam's razor, the explanation with the least contrivances is that she acted in bad faith alone because she doesn't like the guy.

You're just firing conspiracy theories for some reason.

Not really. The idea that she apparently told her therapist and no one does suggest that there isn't a wider conspiracy afoot, but given what's recently come to light with regards to campaign meddling in Arizona on the behalf of the Democrats, it seems to me like there's more to this than a simple dislike of a candidate. It's not so ridiculous to come to the conclusion she was paid to do so, and it doesn't have to be Democrats. There's plenty of rich supporters who are more than willing to pay someone to make accusations.

Bad faith doesn't motivate people in the same way money does.

That makes even less sense than "the Democrats did it" and still doesn't quite answer the question "who else would suspect her?"

[Kubrath]

It seemed to me at a time that the Dems had at least some sort of line they wouldn't cross. It now seems I was wrong.

So you figure there was some point in time when Democrats would have heard about a Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulting someone, but ignored it?

And you think this was a better time than now?

No, I thought there was a time where they wouldn't call for the disqualification of a nominee on the basis of a shaky allegation, which is what this is at this point in the hearings. Upholding the principles of due process on their part should've been a thing, but it wasn't. It's as if they don't even care if it's true or not, they just want this guy to crack.

[Costa Fierro]

Not really. The idea that she apparently told her therapist and no one does suggest that there isn't a wider conspiracy afoot, but given what's recently come to light with regards to campaign meddling in Arizona on the behalf of the Democrats, it seems to me like there's more to this than a simple dislike of a candidate. It's not so ridiculous to come to the conclusion she was paid to do so, and it doesn't have to be Democrats. There's plenty of rich supporters who are more than willing to pay someone to make accusations.

Bad faith doesn't motivate people in the same way money does.

That makes even less sense than "the Democrats did it" and still doesn't quite answer the question "who else would suspect her?"

No one would suspect her. The whole idea of this is to have some random woman make false accusations in an attempt to derail Kavanaugh's appointment.

[Ifreann]

So you figure there was some point in time when Democrats would have heard about a Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulting someone, but ignored it?

And you think this was a better time than now?

No, I thought there was a time where they wouldn't call for the disqualification of a nominee on the basis of a shaky allegation, which is what this is at this point in the hearings. Upholding the principles of due process on their part should've been a thing, but it wasn't. It's as if they don't even care if it's true or not, they just want this guy to crack.

Democrats didn't want Kavanaugh confirmed before these allegations came to light.
Democrats still don't want Kavanaugh confirmed.

Democrats have clearly lost all integrity!

[Kubrath]

Notice I never claimed that it happened that way, simply that the timing is convenient and that it is not unlikely for this to happen. Slipping by the FBI's background checks is not an argument. Saying there's no way for a gargantuan political party to obtain sensitive information because it was supposedly only related to one person is quite ridiculous, I do have to say.

You're claiming it's more likely than the option which requires less caveats. That doesn't make sense, that's irrational.

That you think the Dems are more all-knowing and powerful than the Federal Bureau of fucking Investigstion is downright nonsensical and veering towards paranoid and conspiratorial thinking. Take this to its logical conclusion, if the Dems have this kind of power why are they not steamrolling the opposition?

Hard to know which option has less caveats when there's so little info out. If you think the facts are what you get from the media, you're less rational than you think. And it's interesting that you have so much faith in the FBI when they routinely fail to apprehend dangerous individuals who then go out and shoot up a school. That you have so much faith in a government agency over a monolithic political party with enormous resources makes me question your own rationality. Saying that it's less likely that they'd dig up dirt on him than the FBI missing it is absolutely preposterous.

[Kubrath]

No, I thought there was a time where they wouldn't call for the disqualification of a nominee on the basis of a shaky allegation, which is what this is at this point in the hearings. Upholding the principles of due process on their part should've been a thing, but it wasn't. It's as if they don't even care if it's true or not, they just want this guy to crack.

Democrats didn't want Kavanaugh confirmed before these allegations came to light.
Democrats still don't want Kavanaugh confirmed.

Democrats have clearly lost all integrity!

Democrats were scrambling to find any way to stop this guy before these allegations and that they've found one, they're latching onto it like drowning victims.

[Kubrath]

Every day I tell myself Trump can't get any worse, and every day I'm proven wrong.

If he still surprises you this far out...

There has to be a limit, right? I mean, how far does the rabbit hole go?

[Vassenor]

Democrats didn't want Kavanaugh confirmed before these allegations came to light.
Democrats still don't want Kavanaugh confirmed.

Democrats have clearly lost all integrity!

Democrats were scrambling to find any way to stop this guy before these allegations and that they've found one, they're latching onto it like drowning victims.

Right, because his questionable record and multiple counts of perjury during his hearings don't count.

[Kubrath]

Democrats were scrambling to find any way to stop this guy before these allegations and that they've found one, they're latching onto it like drowning victims.

Right, because his questionable record and multiple counts of perjury during his hearings don't count.

Oh, he's a scumbag for sure, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[Ifreann]

Democrats didn't want Kavanaugh confirmed before these allegations came to light.
Democrats still don't want Kavanaugh confirmed.

Democrats have clearly lost all integrity!

Democrats were scrambling to find any way to stop this guy before these allegations and that they've found one, they're latching onto it like drowning victims.

How evil of them to try to keep someone they think shouldn't be on the Supreme Court off the Supreme Court by making arguments about what's wrong with the nominee in the Senate. Which is exactly how Supreme Court nominations are meant to work. So evil. If Senate Democrats had any respect for due process they'd just stay at home and let the Republicans run the Senate.

[Tahar Joblis]

Not really. The six year term and the blithe refusal to allocate senators based on population both remain. The 17th put the kibosh on the notion that Senators represent state governments rather than people, and helped cut corruption, but it didn't change the central features of the body.

The primary mechanism for trying to balance accountability is the term length - as it was intended to be. Six year staggered terms means that there are always Senators who really don't have to worry about short-term blowback for decisions - just the long-term outcomes.

I'm not saying that the Senate itself is a good idea, but that's literally its main reason for existing - and for it having a role in confirming judicial appointments, for that matter.

I do think the senate is a good idea, it was supposed to function as an American house of lords, John Adams even wanted it to be hereditary. It was intended as a check on the popular representatives. It no longer has that function because it is now comprised of popular representatives. Only thing it does today is to provide an alternative body of representatives based on state instead of district. Trying to rush in a judge of course makes sense, as today the GOP and Dem judicial philosophies are so many billions of miles apart that appointment of judges is wholly a partisan affair.

Senators were always elected. The question was how directly. In some cases (e.g., Lincoln v. Douglas) state legislature elections were viewed as proxy Senate elections. In either way, it was a method of holding Senators accountable. One of the options on the table was to appoint Senators for life ("on good behavior," i.e., unless removed for misbehavior).

As I said, the primary mechanism for holding Senators aloof is the length of term of office. State legislature elections were, as I pointed out, much more frequent - either annual or biennial. The state legislature that considered a senator for re-election would not be the same state legislature that elected them in the first place.

Similarly, for a Senator today, they know that political cycles often shift in as little as two years. This is why, when it comes to Senate Democrats, there's real pressure on the Democrats who (A) are up for election this year and (B) expecting to face a tough race to be more cooperative with Republicans. The three Democrats who broke ranks on the Gorsuch confirmation were all (A) up for election this year and (B) all expected to face a tough race, since they come from states in which Trump did well; this wasn't a coincidence.

[Kubrath]

Democrats were scrambling to find any way to stop this guy before these allegations and that they've found one, they're latching onto it like drowning victims.

How evil of them to try to keep someone they think shouldn't be on the Supreme Court off the Supreme Court by making arguments about what's wrong with the nominee in the Senate. Which is exactly how Supreme Court nominations are meant to work. So evil. If Senate Democrats had any respect for due process they'd just stay at home and let the Republicans run the Senate.

It's not evil to try to defeat your political opponents. It's the methods in which you attempt to do it that may come into question. If they had any respect for due process, they wouldn't start calling for him to bow out simply because of an allegation. They'd actually want to have an investigation first before making such calls.

[Ifreann]

How evil of them to try to keep someone they think shouldn't be on the Supreme Court off the Supreme Court by making arguments about what's wrong with the nominee in the Senate. Which is exactly how Supreme Court nominations are meant to work. So evil. If Senate Democrats had any respect for due process they'd just stay at home and let the Republicans run the Senate.

It's not evil to try to defeat your political opponents. It's the methods in which you attempt to do it that may come into question. If they had any respect for due process, they wouldn't start calling for him to bow out simply because of an allegation. They'd actually want to have an investigation first before making such calls.

So they should wait for an investigation that won't happen to oppose the nominee they were already opposed to before these allegations came to light. They shouldn't want a nominee to drop out whose presence would bring the court into disrepute exactly because the allegations against him will never be investigated.

[Hakons]

Democrats were scrambling to find any way to stop this guy before these allegations and that they've found one, they're latching onto it like drowning victims.

How evil of them to try to keep someone they think shouldn't be on the Supreme Court off the Supreme Court by making arguments about what's wrong with the nominee in the Senate. Which is exactly how Supreme Court nominations are meant to work. So evil. If Senate Democrats had any respect for due process they'd just stay at home and let the Republicans run the Senate.

I'm not sure how you can take this given the events that have happened in this confirmation process. The behavior of the Democrats during the hearings was unacceptable. The decision to release the allegations after the hearing was unethical and unacceptable.

[Ifreann]

How evil of them to try to keep someone they think shouldn't be on the Supreme Court off the Supreme Court by making arguments about what's wrong with the nominee in the Senate. Which is exactly how Supreme Court nominations are meant to work. So evil. If Senate Democrats had any respect for due process they'd just stay at home and let the Republicans run the Senate.

I'm not sure how you can take this given the events that have happened in this confirmation process. The behavior of the Democrats during the hearings was unacceptable. The decision to release the allegations after the hearing was unethical and unacceptable.

Nah.

[Tarsonis]

Feinstein knows the accusations aren’t founded, and she knows they won’t lead to anything. The only hope they have is pushing the circus until the end of the session, at worst or forcing trump to withdraw the nom through scandal.

You're assuming that. There's an equally likely explanation. She knew the accusation was unverifiable and didn't want to expose the accuser to the death threats and harassment she's now got. Instead she sought to prevent his nomination by pressuring Collins and other "moderates" and avoiding this getting out.

And if that were true, we never would have heard about it unless Ford came forward herself. However she didn't, she came forward because Feinstein brought it up without her consent

Honestly, if the Republicans pulled this stunt I’d formally leave the party.

I'm sure you would.

Doubt it all you want. I only said formal because I've all but left officially left the party, just haven't cancelled my membership. If you're dying to know. Just to correct your misjudgment, I didn't vote for Trump.

[Tahar Joblis]

Not really. The idea that she apparently told her therapist and no one does suggest that there isn't a wider conspiracy afoot, but given what's recently come to light with regards to campaign meddling in Arizona on the behalf of the Democrats, it seems to me like there's more to this than a simple dislike of a candidate. It's not so ridiculous to come to the conclusion she was paid to do so, and it doesn't have to be Democrats. There's plenty of rich supporters who are more than willing to pay someone to make accusations.

Bad faith doesn't motivate people in the same way money does.

That makes even less sense than "the Democrats did it" and still doesn't quite answer the question "who else would suspect her?"

It makes more sense.

Here's the basic reason why: Conspiracies are complicated and often end up leaking. Conspiracies usually require lots of bad actors deliberately acting in bad faith with high risk.

The Democratic Party itself paying people to produce false accusations would be a monumental conspiracy. It would be very risky for anyone involved, especially given that the party apparently leaks information like a sieve.

One person paying Ford to come forward only requires adding one bad actor. That's a much simpler theory. The issue here is that unless the therapist and husband are also lying (two more bad actors) Ford's original private account of the event pre-dated Kavanaugh's nomination.

I'll give you a relevant and timely example. Let's take Nassar. There was a cover-up by MSU admins burying complaints about it. There was also a cover-up by MSU admins of sexual assault allegations against football players. There's no reason to believe the two are connected directly; instead, both are mediated by a culture that trains university administrators to bury anything that looks bad for the university. University admins don't have to conspire with each other very much on covering up complaints of sexual abuse, because they have individual incentives to obscure, lose, or otherwise fail to act. (Golden university admin rule: Do nothing that could lead to your name being connected with a lawsuit.)

[Vassenor]

How evil of them to try to keep someone they think shouldn't be on the Supreme Court off the Supreme Court by making arguments about what's wrong with the nominee in the Senate. Which is exactly how Supreme Court nominations are meant to work. So evil. If Senate Democrats had any respect for due process they'd just stay at home and let the Republicans run the Senate.

I'm not sure how you can take this given the events that have happened in this confirmation process. The behavior of the Democrats during the hearings was unacceptable. The decision to release the allegations after the hearing was unethical and unacceptable.

And what "unacceptable" behaviour are we talking about here?

[Big Jim P]

That makes even less sense than "the Democrats did it" and still doesn't quite answer the question "who else would suspect her?"

It makes more sense.

Here's the basic reason why: Conspiracies are complicated and often end up leaking. Conspiracies usually require lots of bad actors deliberately acting in bad faith with high risk.

The Democratic Party itself paying people to produce false accusations would be a monumental conspiracy. It would be very risky for anyone involved, especially given that the party apparently leaks information like a sieve.

One person paying Ford to come forward only requires adding one bad actor. That's a much simpler theory. The issue here is that unless the therapist and husband are also lying (two more bad actors) Ford's original private account of the event pre-dated Kavanaugh's nomination.

I'll give you a relevant and timely example. Let's take Nassar. There was a cover-up by MSU admins burying complaints about it. There was also a cover-up by MSU admins of sexual assault allegations against football players. There's no reason to believe the two are connected directly; instead, both are mediated by a culture that trains university administrators to bury anything that looks bad for the university. University admins don't have to conspire with each other very much on covering up complaints of sexual abuse, because they have individual incentives to obscure, lose, or otherwise fail to act. (Golden university admin rule: Do nothing that could lead to your name being connected with a lawsuit.)

The dems and various resistance actors also have incentives to lie: their hatred of Trump, his policies, conservatism in general and the fact that they have absolutely nothing to offer.

[Grinning Dragon]

You're assuming that. There's an equally likely explanation. She knew the accusation was unverifiable and didn't want to expose the accuser to the death threats and harassment she's now got. Instead she sought to prevent his nomination by pressuring Collins and other "moderates" and avoiding this getting out.

And if that were true, we never would have heard about it unless Ford came forward herself. However she didn't, she came forward because Feinstein brought it up without her consent

I'm sure you would.

Doubt it all you want. I only said formal because I've all but left officially left the party, just haven't cancelled my membership. If you're dying to know. Just to correct your misjudgment, I didn't vote for Trump.

Difi, maintains that the existence of the letter was leaked a week after the confirmation hearings had closed and it was why she decided to come forward with it.

[Tarsonis]

And if that were true, we never would have heard about it unless Ford came forward herself. However she didn't, she came forward because Feinstein brought it up without her consent



Doubt it all you want. I only said formal because I've all but left officially left the party, just haven't cancelled my membership. If you're dying to know. Just to correct your misjudgment, I didn't vote for Trump.

Difi, maintains that the existence of the letter was leaked a week after the confirmation hearings had closed and it was why she decided to come forward with it.

If it leaked, it's because she leaked it, as it was her office that received it. Given the fact that she had a chinese spy as an aide, I wouldn't be surprised that her office has more holes than a colander. But I don't buy it. We didn't hear anything about it until she announced it, she's trying to play innocent but nobody except the left is buying it.

[Ifreann]

And if that were true, we never would have heard about it unless Ford came forward herself. However she didn't, she came forward because Feinstein brought it up without her consent



Doubt it all you want. I only said formal because I've all but left officially left the party, just haven't cancelled my membership. If you're dying to know. Just to correct your misjudgment, I didn't vote for Trump.

Difi, maintains that the existence of the letter was leaked a week after the confirmation hearings had closed and it was why she decided to come forward with it.

Who maintains this?

[Shofercia]

Difi, maintains that the existence of the letter was leaked a week after the confirmation hearings had closed and it was why she decided to come forward with it.

If it leaked, it's because she leaked it, as it was her office that received it. Given the fact that she had a chinese spy as an aide, I wouldn't be surprised that her office has more holes than a colander. But I don't buy it. We didn't hear anything about it until she announced it, she's trying to play innocent but nobody except the left is buying it.

Not even the Left is buying it: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 15520.html

“The American people deserve to know why the Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee waited nearly three months to hand this disqualifying document over to the federal authorities and why Sen. Feinstein politely pantomimed her way through last week’s hearing without a single question about the content of Kavanaugh’s character,” California state Sen. Kevin de León, a fellow Democrat, said in a statement.

That's Kevin de León, the California State Senate leader, who's running against Feinstein for the Senate seat. Why would he say that, if the Left was buying it?

[Mardla]

I do think the senate is a good idea, it was supposed to function as an American house of lords, John Adams even wanted it to be hereditary. It was intended as a check on the popular representatives. It no longer has that function because it is now comprised of popular representatives. Only thing it does today is to provide an alternative body of representatives based on state instead of district. Trying to rush in a judge of course makes sense, as today the GOP and Dem judicial philosophies are so many billions of miles apart that appointment of judges is wholly a partisan affair.

Senators were always elected. The question was how directly. In some cases (e.g., Lincoln v. Douglas) state legislature elections were viewed as proxy Senate elections. In either way, it was a method of holding Senators accountable. One of the options on the table was to appoint Senators for life ("on good behavior," i.e., unless removed for misbehavior).

As I said, the primary mechanism for holding Senators aloof is the length of term of office. State legislature elections were, as I pointed out, much more frequent - either annual or biennial. The state legislature that considered a senator for re-election would not be the same state legislature that elected them in the first place.

Similarly, for a Senator today, they know that political cycles often shift in as little as two years. This is why, when it comes to Senate Democrats, there's real pressure on the Democrats who (A) are up for election this year and (B) expecting to face a tough race to be more cooperative with Republicans. The three Democrats who broke ranks on the Gorsuch confirmation were all (A) up for election this year and (B) all expected to face a tough race, since they come from states in which Trump did well; this wasn't a coincidence.

Term of office was supplemental, at least at this degree. Your emphasis on it as primary is impossible to reconcile with the Federalist Papers