So some guy does something to you in a setting where the only evidence is the testimony of the two people involved. So how are you supposed to know whether he did something similar to other people without first going public yourself?
2 Likes
Yes, I agree that this is a problem. However, waiting 15 years is not the way to stop him from assaulting other women. She waited 15 years, and if he is a repeat offender, he must have done a ton of other assaults. Right?
Because they won? I mean, tarring the lawyers for giving their client sound legal advice is kinda like railing against defense attorneys who âprotect criminalsâ. The adversarial system only works if everyoneâs doing their best to win.
1 Like
Arenât we still waiting for you to tell us who you tried to rape, Nick? âEvery man does thisâ, right?
2 Likes
That should have been investigated fully. I found her very credible. She even offered up things that she felt could be investigated (pay stubs, etc.) to help put it all together. And itâs quite clear Kavanaugh was a serious drunk who blacked out, and that he has some anger management issues (his comeback to Klobuchar was disgraceful). She also took a polygraph and passed, would Kavanaugh do that? Sorry, I think Kavanaugh did it and does not even remember. He was described by classmates as being a big time drinker and a nasty drunk. His own yearbook page was all about getting drunk and puking. And he showed no indication he wanted an investigation. That has ZERO to do with the other false accusers, and a couple of them should be prosecuted, agreed.
Iâm quite sure some of Cosbyâs accusers either jumped on the bandwagon, or willingly did things and now see an opportunity. That does not have anything to do with the FACT that the dirt bag was getting drugs illegally, doping women up, and assaulting them.
You have the freedom to believe what you wish. I have no interest in convincing you to believe otherwise.
I was extremely pleased to see his confirmation. There is a need to establish what is acceptable in a confirmation hearing. Things that happen in high school should not be admissible or even considered. We all did stupid shit. Thatâs because we WERE ADOLESCENTS. I donât even care if he was along the lines of sexual assault. He was in high school. Nothing, not a single thing, should be considered. Hopefully, this kind of absolutely idiotic shit will not be brought up in the next hearing. It would be different if things happened when he was an adult. But I strongly object to this kind of he-said-she-said uncorroborated âI believe her because she was well-spoken on the standâ shit. Whereâs the police report?
What if someone stole a car and went joy riding, and then went on to become an honored lawyer. What if someone, like myself, took a lot of drugs in college, but was never arrested?
All of this shit happened years ago. If there is no police report, it should not be brought up. Period.
We both know that there is one reason and one reason only for that circus - Dems had POLITICAL reasons to try to stop him. It was a perversion of a hearing, due to Democratic attempts to stop him.
I object to one thing about him - he is Catholic. We currently have 6 Catholics, 1 former catholic, and 2 Jews on the Court. Say whatever you like, religion colors your views, and we have too many Catholics. If abortion rights are endangered, it is due to that over-representation of Catholics. Catholics currently represent 20% of the USA population approximately. Protestants represent 35%, Jews 3-4%, NONE 30%, and so forth. However, in the current climate, no one can say âWe have too many Catholicsâ, even though it is certainly true.
How casual misogyny functions in our society, a lesson in two easy steps:
Step 1: man rapes woman.
Step 2: men: âwhy didnât she stop him?â
You left out Step 3: Wait 15-30 years, then say âI was taken advantage ofâ.
This is bullshit.
TPM editors: if itâs newsworthy that certain law firms have been retained, the firms should be identified. Because journalism.
1 Like
âLetters to Santaâ was a few weeks ago. 
Who did you try to rape, Nick?
I was not. He was nominated for ONE reason, he believes in Presidential Power over Congressional Power, and Trump wants him for that reason only. Period. He clearly was not vetted. His yearbook page clearly showed he liked to drink to excess, and all we heard about at the hearing was how he loved beer, and loves beer, and will continue to love beer. Plus the FIVE F Club? Seriously. Heâs a fucking pig for that. Yes, a GREAT example for kids. âHey son, donât drink a lot at collegeâ âWhy not dad, I could become a Supreme Court Justice!!!â. Disgraceful.
Furthermore, he CLEARLY perjured himself on the stand, and a real investigation would have shown that. âRalphingâ is when you get too drunk and puke. And FFFFF is not âsome guy we knew who stutteredâ Itâs a common phrase among assholes that means âFind 'em, Finger 'em, Feel 'em, Fuck 'em, Forget 'emâ. Itâs not even debatable. So he CLEARLY perjured himself on those two things. Yes, SCOTUS Justice perjured himself at least twice as part of his confirmation. Plus he was so unprofessional on the stand, he could not keep his cool. VERY unbecoming of a Judge.
Heâs punk who could care less about women.
Really? Why not the fuss on Neil Gorsuch then? Gorsuch is just as conservative. I frankly disagree with most of what Gorsuch believes, but heâs a professional, not some wise ass punk like Kavanaugh. So there was NO outrage from the left on Gorsuch regarding his âpersonâ, the objections were only on policy, and he was confirmed with no madness.
Yet you favored a judge who is anti-abortion rights? Seriously? By the way, Sotomayor is Catholic. Sheâs also pro-abortion rights. Iâm not worried about Catholics, Iâm worried about Christian nut jobs. Kavanugh is one.
2 Likes
I am confused. You expected Trump to nominate a pro-abortion judge? If Kavanaugh was not confirmed, do you believe that a pro-choice judge would be nominated?
Did you know that RBG, the N RBG, is not a fan of Roe? She believes that the political process was circumvented by Roe. I do not know what will happen. But if we get to a point where MORE politics is in the abortion situation, more women will need to think âDo I want that option available?â
But the entire abortion thing is being handled so very poorly by Dems right now. This entire issue is a very difficult one. Itâs an essential part of health care. But what the Dems wanted to do in VA was make it easier to obtain. That is not a good idea. Making 3rd trimester abortion easy is stupid. Why are Dems doing that?
If you donât want anti-choice judges, the first thing is to ensure that no more Catholics be appointed.
Agreed, that is beyond stupid.
My initial point was that it has nothing to do with being born Catholic. It has to do with being a Christian nut job. Roberts is conservative and Catholic and just voted with the liberals. Sotomayor is Catholic.
You reference RBG not being a fan of Roe. Well, if true, sheâs Jewish.