Previously unreported Kavanaugh accuser comes forward with new allegations

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/ronanfarrow/status/1173024704556347397?s=21

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1173250953103007745?s=21

Impeachment is never going to happen. Samuel Chase was the only Supreme Court justice to ever be impeached, and he was acquitted by the Senate. That was more than two hundred years ago. Impeachment would require a two-thirds conviction by the Senate, and I don't see Republicans risking the conservative majority on the Supreme Court for that purpose.

This being said, I don't know what else to say about Kavanaugh at this point.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't know about everyone else, but I am shocked - shocked, I tell you - to discover that many of the blue avatars in this thread don't give a crap about holding sex predators accountable for their crimes.  

It’s just that we don’t think Kavanaugh was guilty , and don’t think the case against him even meets preponderance of evidence standard

[7,052,770]

I don't know about everyone else, but I am shocked - shocked, I tell you - to discover that many of the blue avatars in this thread don't give a crap about holding sex predators accountable for their crimes.  

It’s just that we don’t think Kavanaugh was guilty , and don’t think the case against him even meets preponderance of evidence standard

And we think that your side made up their minds before ever hearing a shred of evidence, and then stuck to it no matter what because surrendering to the libs is the absolute worst thing in your minds.

Now, I don't know that the latter part necessarily applies to you in particular, but the former does for sure. There were some Democrats who didn't approach the Kavanaugh hearings with an open mind, no doubt, but there were virtually no Republicans who approached it with an open mind. (Fuzzy Bear and Lisa Murkowski being the only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head.)

[Pandaguineapig]

Needless to say, outside of some general attention-seeking statements from presidential candidates. This isn't getting the same coverage the initial allegations got. I'm also pretty sure Democrats don't want to re-litigate this crap after it cost them a couple Senate seats last year

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nearly a year ago, I posted that the reason that so many people defended Kavanaugh was because many were rapists themselves. That post was deleted by mods.

My view is unchanged.

I suppose the reason so many people promote flimsy evidence is because they've themselves made false accusations against people?

[Waldo]

Here we go again. If allegations without proof led to impeachment, there would be no such thing as a career politician.

Actually, you might be on to something there... 😂😂😂

In the meantime, you have federal judges in the lower courts who repeatedly stall anything and everything the president tries to do by saying it's unconstitutional, only to have that ruling overturned by the Supreme Court because, as it turns out, it's completely constitutional. This can mean only the following:

1. Those lower court judges don't know the Constitution, and/or

2. It's a delay tactic driven by purely political motives.

Pick your shortcoming: ignorance or apathy. Either one makes you provably unfit for the bench. Apparently nobody gives two licks about judges that either can't or won't do their jobs properly, though. This is like a Democrat episode of Twilight Zone.

Imagine, if you will, a world not of this making. A world where gossip holds more weight than behavior, where emotions can change biology, where life doesn't exist until the government issues a birth certificate and social security card...

Gotta love it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Wow! September never seems to be a good month for the frat-douche Justice. Who would have known that was he was a creep!? It's not like we had an entire hearing about it or anything.

Anyway, long story short: F*** Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, and Joe Manchin. The Supreme Court is now even more in crisis because of their votes for this derelict. Trump would have gotten to pick a Justice one way or the other, I still don't understand why it had to be this twat. Oh wait! I do understand-to spite the libs. That's right. That's completely worth perverting (pun intended) our nation's highest court. The Senate isn't only to blame though, that half-assed FBI "investigation" of Kavanaugh is just as responsible. Sure, it would still have been ignored, but this is an FBI situation that actually needs clarification, not the Mueller/Russia probe. I guess accountability and oversight are just concepts from a bygone era though, or at least when Trump or someone associated with him are the focus.

Oh, f*** it! This won't matter. I say this all the time to the point of meaninglessness but it remains true: nothing matters.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In the meantime, you have federal judges in the lower courts who repeatedly stall anything and everything the president tries to do by saying it's unconstitutional, only to have that ruling overturned by the Supreme Court because, as it turns out, it's completely constitutional. This can mean only the following:

1. Those lower court judges don't know the Constitution, and/or

2. It's a delay tactic driven by purely political motives.

Or

3. The Supreme Court is rubberstamping Trump's actions for "purely political motives" of its very own.

Welcome to the forum, I guess.

[pbrower2a]

He is a monster when drunk, but OK by corporatist standards when sober.

It is entirely possible that his liver will impeach and remove him. He is a sick joke -- but elections have consequences. Unless he does something corrupt as a jurist he probably sticks until cirrhosis ends his career.

[Waldo]

In the meantime, you have federal judges in the lower courts who repeatedly stall anything and everything the president tries to do by saying it's unconstitutional, only to have that ruling overturned by the Supreme Court because, as it turns out, it's completely constitutional. This can mean only the following:

1. Those lower court judges don't know the Constitution, and/or

2. It's a delay tactic driven by purely political motives.

Or

3. The Supreme Court is rubberstamping Trump's actions for "purely political motives" of its very own.

Welcome to the forum, I guess.

That would be a good argument if SCOTUS consistently voted along party lines, but I'm not sure that's the case. Even if it were, it would mean that the liberal Justices are doing the exact same thing you're accusing conservative Justices of doing. Unfortunately for you, conservative Justices are historically more likely to disagree with each other, which logically leads to the conclusion that they're less likely to vote among party lines. So I take it back... it's a terrible argument no matter what.

Thanks for the welcome, I guess. Are there finger sandwiches? Everything's free, right? That's how we roll?

[Sumner 1868]

Nearly a year ago, I posted that the reason that so many people defended Kavanaugh was because many were rapists themselves. That post was deleted by mods.

My view is unchanged.

I suppose the reason so many people promote flimsy evidence is because they've themselves made false accusations against people?

Frankly, I don't buy that for a minute. Most of Kavanaugh's enthusiasts appear to subconsciously (or even consciously!) believe he is guilty (the comments aimed at Dr. Ford last year prove that). That is why they like him so much. Much of it from people who otherwise seem apolitical. Gee, I wonder why?

There are obviously at least a couple million rapists in this country of 300 million+. Do you really think that doesn't result in a good base of support for a rapist?

The truth that really hurts is that if Truth Hurts made a comment about me as she made here in real life, I'd sue her and enjoy depositing the money I received from her garnished paychecks. 

I'm not female and never have been. This is Atlas...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Nearly a year ago, I posted that the reason that so many people defended Kavanaugh was because many were rapists themselves. That post was deleted by mods.

My view is unchanged.

I suppose the reason so many people promote flimsy evidence is because they've themselves made false accusations against people?

Frankly, I don't buy that for a minute. Most of Kavanaugh's enthusiasts appear to subconsciously (or even consciously!) believe he is guilty (the comments aimed at Dr. Ford last year prove that). That is why they like him so much. Much of it from people who otherwise seem apolitical. Gee, I wonder why?

There are obviously at least a couple million rapists in this country of 300 million+. Do you really think that doesn't result in a good base of support for a rapist?

The truth that really hurts is that if Truth Hurts made a comment about me as she made here in real life, I'd sue her and enjoy depositing the money I received from her garnished paychecks. 

I'm not female and never have been. This is Atlas...

Indeed, it is!   

[Beet]

My problem with Kavanaugh was that he lied under oath - to the Senate and the public - at his hearings. Particularly he was dishonest about some misogynistic comments in his YearBook. He got up there was a smarmy, condescending attitude and misrepresented the comments - which were about a woman who was his friend and signed a letter vouching for his character after the accusation came out.

Does that mean he was guilty of what Ford accused him of? No.

Does it disqualify him from serving on the Court? A Supreme Court Justice's very title is "Justice". This derives from the fact that traditionally the highest ranking judge in the English judicial system held the title of Justice. It implies they are supposed to embody justice itself.

They sit at the top of the system that protects your rights, my rights, everyone's rights. No matter what your political party. At bottom, the only thing preventing the government, or anyone, from bursting into your home at any time and committing assault against you and yours without legal authority is the Courts. It holds veto power over every Article in the Constitution, every Bill of rights, every Amendment, every Law, every Regulation. The Court is absolutely necessary to the functioning of the United States and the only thing that stands between us and tyranny.

Thus those who sit on that Court need to be held to a high standard of truth. Being dishonest before the Senate and public makes one unfit. Kavanaugh is unfit.

[DrScholl]

He is a monster when drunk, but OK by corporatist standards when sober.

It is entirely possible that his liver will impeach and remove him. He is a sick joke -- but elections have consequences. Unless he does something corrupt as a jurist he probably sticks until cirrhosis ends his career.

Or he could be made so miserable by investigations and a soiled reputation that he resigned out of pure frustration. That's a long shot since a privileged hyper Christian man isn't going to give up what he thinks God selected him for, but nonetheless he should be investigated as soon as Democrats can take control of the Presidency and the Senate (no matter how long that might take).

[Badger]

Once again, conservatives and Republicans demonstrate themselves in this thread to be horrible and shameless apologists for sexual assault so long as it increases their political power.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Once again, conservatives and Republicans demonstrate themselves in this thread to be horrible and shameless apologists for sexual assault so long as it increases their political power.

It’s not being an apologist if you believe someone is not guilty .

[Badger]

Once again, conservatives and Republicans demonstrate themselves in this thread to be horrible and shameless apologists for sexual assault so long as it increases their political power.

It’s not being an apologist if you believe someone is not guilty .

And the facts in this case take a tremendous amount of projection and willful ignorance to believe innocence.

I called out Jessie Smottett's story as "highly suspicious" from the get go because the facts warranted it. Likewise, I'd wouldn't believe the innocence--or more importantly the sworn testimony--of a liberal Brett Kavanaugh about this incident--or most of the several others for that matter--of sexual battery.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Once again, conservatives and Republicans demonstrate themselves in this thread to be horrible and shameless apologists for sexual assault so long as it increases their political power.

It’s not being an apologist if you believe someone is not guilty .

And the facts in this case take a tremendous amount of projection and willful ignorance to believe innocence.

I called out Jessie Smottett's story as "highly suspicious" from the get go because the facts warranted it. Likewise, I'd wouldn't believe the innocence--or more importantly the sworn testimony--of a liberal Brett Kavanaugh about this incident--or most of the several others for that matter--of sexual battery.

Again the standard shouldn’t be for Kavanaugh to prove his innocence but for him to be proven guilty using a preponderance of evidence which this case didn’t meet .

[Fuzzy Bear]

Once again, conservatives and Republicans demonstrate themselves in this thread to be horrible and shameless apologists for sexual assault so long as it increases their political power.

It’s not being an apologist if you believe someone is not guilty .

And the facts in this case take a tremendous amount of projection and willful ignorance to believe innocence.

I called out Jessie Smottett's story as "highly suspicious" from the get go because the facts warranted it. Likewise, I'd wouldn't believe the innocence--or more importantly the sworn testimony--of a liberal Brett Kavanaugh about this incident--or most of the several others for that matter--of sexual battery.

Again the standard shouldn’t be for Kavanaugh to prove his innocence but for him to be proven guilty using a preponderance of evidence which this case didn’t meet .

You didn't get the memo.  If you don't believe every (female) accuser uncritically, you're part of the "Rape Culture" and, by definition a Scumbag. 

The Atlas Left isn't about principled fairness.  It's about Narrative Driving at all costs.

[Badger]

Once again, conservatives and Republicans demonstrate themselves in this thread to be horrible and shameless apologists for sexual assault so long as it increases their political power.

It’s not being an apologist if you believe someone is not guilty .

And the facts in this case take a tremendous amount of projection and willful ignorance to believe innocence.

I called out Jessie Smottett's story as "highly suspicious" from the get go because the facts warranted it. Likewise, I'd wouldn't believe the innocence--or more importantly the sworn testimony--of a liberal Brett Kavanaugh about this incident--or most of the several others for that matter--of sexual battery.

Again the standard shouldn’t be for Kavanaugh to prove his innocence but for him to be proven guilty using a preponderance of evidence which this case didn’t meet .

You didn't get the memo.  If you don't believe every (female) accuser uncritically, you're part of the "Rape Culture" and, by definition a Scumbag. 

The Atlas Left isn't about principled fairness.  It's about Narrative Driving at all costs.

Ignoring Fuzzy per usual, we will ABSOLUTELY disagree that this didn't meet the perponderance of evidence that Kavanaugh was lying.

However, OSR, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as probably being one of the few conservatives or Republicans who likely would've defended Kavenaugh if he were a liberal nominee.

[DrScholl]

Preponderance of evidence doesn't apply here because there wasn't a trial. When confirming someone for a lifetime appointment it's important to take integrity into account and past behavior. It's like hiring for a job and hearing a lot of negative stories about a potential employee. Even without mountains of evidence to support claims of negative behavior you probably aren't going to take the risk on hiring someone who could harm your business. Not to mention the blackmail potential.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The evidence against a Kavanaugh wasn’t that different from the evidence against Bill on his accusations

[Badger]

The evidence against a Kavanaugh wasn’t that different from the evidence against Bill on his accusations

Exactly. And you point is.....?

[Pandaguineapig]

The evidence against a Kavanaugh wasn’t that different from the evidence against Bill on his accusations

It's far weaker, considering:
-The allegations against Clinton were reported in a timely manner, as opposed to 36 years later.
-Clinton's accusers had specific memories of the incidents, while Kavanaugh's did not
-The rules of time and space allow the possibility that Clinton's accusers were telling the truth, while they don't for Blasey Ford's testimony.
-Kavanaugh's accusers have known political biases that counter his, while Clinton's accusers have mixed political biases
-Clinton provably lied to Congress about his sexual misadventures, while in Kavanaugh's case, it's nothing but his word against theirs

But Bill Clinton is a Democrat who supports abortion, so leftists are willing to give him a Mulligan on a couple of rapes