• (Opinion) How Brett Kavanaugh could harm the legitimacy of the Supreme Court
    179 replies, posted
hey metist, please define "devil's triangle" :y
plus, there's "upset" and then there's "devil's triangle is a, uh, drinking game. also I never drank illegally"
This is once again moving the goalposts so you can disregard my post. Are you fucking blind? Are you a bot? Is this a script? Am I being trolled?
Yeah, he thought based on past events that Hillary did something. Him being right or wrong on such a thing doesn't make him unfit to be a judge, it was his own conjecture. Doesn't mean anything and thank god for that. Anyone unpopular could get several people to make any accusation up, what matters is if they can prove it and they couldn't.
Good luck proving anything that long ago. Should it convict him? no. Should he get the job until a THOROUGH investigation? NO
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/05/media-coverage-brett-kavanaugh-misinformation/ "Multiple media outlets accused Kavanaugh of lying about the term “devil’s triangle” in his high school yearbook, which Democrats claimed was a reference to a group sex act. When asked by Democratic Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Kavanaugh said that “devil’s triangle” was a drinking game played with quarters and three cups. The Huffington Post called Kavanaugh’s explanation a “lie.” Seven witnesses — including the classmate credited in the yearbook for inventing the game — have corroborated Kavanaugh’s account of “devil’s triangle.” Politico on Thursday published a video that cited the website Urban Dictionary to suggest Kavanaugh was lying. Politico later deleted the video and issued an apology for its “outdated information" Sure, you could call it fishy if you really want but again, he wasn't proven lying.
and one more question. With all the controversy surrounding this man, do you not think it would have made sense to pick someone else? I mean there are only 9 supreme judges in the entire countries. there surely are plenty of people to pick from, so surely you can maintain high standards. Isnt it a bit odd that the republicans still tried to pick the guy that former supreme judges, and thousands of other professors said shouldn't get the position? I mean, if I was looking for one man to control the flow of laws and history for an entire country, and probably had countless of applicants, I probably would not have picked the guy who spent his time talking about how he liked beer so much. I am sorry, but ultimately, with all the problems this guy had, I am certain there were far, FAR better alternatives than this man
The reason this man had so much controversy was mainly because he WAS going to get picked. If this is an argument against picking someone then you could cause controversy against anyone you don't like and suddenly they "shouldn't" be elected. It's basically a form of bullying.
When it's something as serious as rape? and it's 3 accusers? yes
if I was a politician with an R next to my name I could sell you your own shit by calling it chocolate
so you already established that you believe that the rape allegations are false. but you really saw nothing wrong with his behavior at all? blaming the democrats and hillary was an appropriate reaction?
The argument is, is that quoted excerpt or is it not "he said she said and conjecture". Are you PUI? The fact that Kavanaugh may have honestly believed that, and therefore not lied while making misleading statements is a completely separate argument that until now I have not made a single word towards. So let's talk about that. It is true that if Kavanaugh didn't know the information he was giving was false, it does not count as a lie because it lacks malicious intent. Sure. But ignorance is not a defense against perjury, and even if it was, there's another problem: Kavanaugh should have known the correct information and presented it honestly; if he can't even correctly match his own 18th birthday with the Maryland drinking age law and its adjustment upwards to 21 while grandfathering in everyone 18 or older as of the day the law came into effect. And it should be pointed out that Kavanaugh correctly quoted the Maryland law and its shift and grandfather clause; but he misrepresented that he was of the correct age to fall under the grandfather clause, which is something that would have personally had an effect on him for three years if true and might be something that would be expected to be remembered if he went to the trouble of researching the law. If he can't get this bit right, how is he supposed to be trusted with dealing with potentially dozens of incremental legal precedents in a particularly complicated body of case law, beginning from potentially to centuries ago with layer on layer on layer of precedent modifying the preceeding precedent? If he's committing off-by-one errors about his own personal life history, why is he the most fit for the highest court? Is there honestly no better Republican-preferred candidate? And let us remember that I grabbed one single suspicious statement out of an article full of them. I'm still waiting for a response to my original argument in response to providing that article.
Where's your 'innocent until proven guilty' here? The allegations of sexual assault were not proven to be false, and in fact don't even need to because this wasn't a criminal trial. A reasonable suspicion is enough to deny him the seat, because it's more important to keep the American people safe than give Brett a job he feels entitled to. And yet, you keep parading around that the allegations were false, but you're fine with going "Yeah maybe the Democrats are conspiring to commit libel, yes that makes sense"?
It's super dishonest to cut off part of my statement and argue the new tangent you created instead of arguing my original point. And I wish the Republican party had anything resembling integrity but here we are, pretending like Kavanaugh and friends created a drinking game that conveniently had the same name as something referred to exclusively as a sex act.
The fact that his nomination and appointment has fueled so much debate is in itself enough reason not to put him on the SC. Someone this controversial doesn't belong on the highest court making decisions that could affect the entire country and beyond when his truthfulness and honesty is questioned so much. He couldn't even answer a direct yes or no question regarding whether the FBI should investigate the allegations. Instead of just saying "yes" or "no" he tried to sidestep and avoid saying anything that could even be interpreted as an answer. If he were innocent then an investigation wouldn't find anything, and if he were guilty dodging the question or saying no would be an attempt at a coverup. Any honorable judge would've answered yes without delay or doubt. Do you really want somebody who would refuse to order and/or support an investigation for personal reasons?
feels like 2009
I would just like to nail Metist to this one particular statement, as I feel it perfectly encapsulates everything that's wrong with their arguments. If you don't, you don't deserve to be a Federal Judge. If you lose your cool and disgrace the entirety of the Federal Court by ranting about conspiracy theories and asking Senators 'have you been black-out drunk' in absolutely baseless conjecture just because you don't want to answer a question, you do not have the composure to be a Federal Judge, let alone a SCOTUS Judge. Here's what a person qualified to be a Federal Judge would do, where literally any other action should result in their being removed from their seat, under the circumstances you describe: Call for a full investigation into those claims by the FBI, completely unhampered where they may pursue any line of questioning they like.
For those of defending Kavanaugh on the principle that he is an innocent man waylaid by a claim of sexual assault, you should know that the GOP was willing to blame some random dude for the crime instead. He likely wouldn't have been confirmed without this theory, Collins basically used it in her reasoning for her vote. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/1/17914526/ford-kavanaugh-scotus-conservatives-doppelganger
I have a friend that keeps responding to normal questions with, "Have you!? Have you though!?" in reference to Brett being unable to simply answer the question about blacking out. Because it broke his brain that a judge responded like a toddler when he didn't like what his answer would have been. There have been long form debates over what the rules of the "devils triangle" drinking game would be because everybody under thirty knows what the fuck a devils triangle is. I've seen women express fear and men (ironically) express joy that lying and crying is apparently enough to shake serious allegations. I've heard the words, again ironically, "It's nice to know that my calenders are enough." I guess what I'm saying is that this event has sent ripples throughout the country. People who do not fuck with politics fuck with this story. I'd be interested to see polls but my anecdotal experience discussing this leads me to believe most men would not react the way Kav did if they were falsely accused while in his position. It's easy to not do what he did. It's easy to not lie. It's easy to not say, "What goes around comes around" in a job interview for a job where you're not supposed to hold bias. It's easy to say, "I can't speculate as to why but I feel as though these allegations were conjured up to hurt my chances of being a supreme court judge" instead of suggesting it was a Clinton conspiracy. It's easy to say, "Yes I support an investigation that would clear my name." if you're innocent. It's easy to say, "Yes I black out but I 100% believe that during my lapses in memory I did nothing against anyone else's consent." because most of us that have gotten drunk to the point of blacking out have never even gotten close to giving the impression that we're capable of something that shitty. Personally, if I was up for a job and they asked to investigate if I had assaulted someone in the past, maybe in a he-said-she-said scenario, I would be happy. Because I didn't so having them interview people from my past would only bring them positive glowing reviews of my personality. People would say things like, "are you fucking kidding me, Lori?! Never." and it would only be a positive thing for me. I think this is the root of it. People are pissed that more is expected of them than at the highest levels of our government.
Dude, you haven't made one cogent argument yet. Your argument is that we're all biased against the guy because of a claim of rape. In all honesty, this is not why we're against him. People like myself are against him because 1) He perjured himself on the stand 2) He knowingly misrepresented facts in his statements 3) He lost his temper and threatened his political opponents These 3 things are all unprecedented for a supreme court judge. This has never happened before, and to act like this is okay because we live in crazy times is just absurd. Present one cogent, thoughtful argument and you'll get some thoughtful responses. Just throwing out words and anger because you see impropriety is useless.
@Metist I'm getting the feeling that your argument against "He shouldn't act like that at the hearing because it's unprofessional" is more or less "He's only human!", correct me if i'm wrong. And you are right, he is only human. However, he is a human who is ascending to a role in society where his actions will shape the lives of millions, potentially for generations. Do you want someone who is emotionally vulnerable in a position to make those decisions? Someone who has, in no small words, said that he will "get" those who have wronged him? Someone who also believes that certain politicians, and certain presidents in particular, should be above the rule of law? And who is in fact associated with that very same politician in a more than congenial way? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I imagine the follow up would be "He's suffering personal attacks and unfounded accusations, anyone would be emotional!" and again, I don't believe that you are wrong. Let me posit this however: Did you ever see Obama break down on stage and scream bloody murder at those who have wronged him? No. Did you see Hillary burst into tears during an interview when the 5,236th person said "LOCK HER UP!"? No. Did you ever see George Bush Jr. slam his fists in impotent rage whenever someone made a "Bush did 9/11!" comment? No. Did these emotionally effect these people? Undoubtedly, but because we hold these people to a higher standard, they kept themselves professional in the face of such wild and baseless attacks. Whether these personal attacks affected their decisions is something known only to themselves. Now I will grant that the role of Supreme Court Judge and President are two different roles, however they are both high political positions, where every movement and every word uttered will be scrutinised, whether or not they said it "on the job" or not. And some of these scrutinies will be unpleasant, and many will be baseless personal attacks. And there will be lots of them. They will be held personally responsible for the hardships of many Americans for generations. They will be called horrific things, there'll be people fantasising about their death openly (if they aren't already). If they thought the attacks were vitriolic now, they will only become worse once they take office. If they cannot keep themselves composed in what is essentially a job interview for this position, then they are unworthy to hold that position. Because we hold those in high public office to a much higher standard of conduct than regular citizens. Of course, the argument could be made that the Supreme Court has become so partisan that standards completely fly out the window, and getting a good candidate means little any more. But that's a different argument for a different time.
It occurs to me, it can be proven Kavanaugh committed numerous felonies by perjuring himself when speaking to the Senate. Could he be arrested as a SCJ? Granted, it wouldn't be impeachment, but it would effectively rule him out as a judge since he isn't able to carry out his duties.
And, pray tell, what (reasonable) logic or evidence would lead to that conclusion? What power or influence does Hillary have as a private citizen in terms of coordinating a conspiracy of that caliber? What places his speculation over the likes of an Alex Jones InfoWars rant?
Maybe they use Ambien.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.