The Smearing Of Brett Kavanaugh Is Truly Evil

[anatta]

Agreed. Throughout his presidency, he fought hard for women's issues. Kavanaugh, by comparison, is famously the biggest threat to women's control over their own bodies when it comes to abortion, and possibly even contraception. We can tell a lot about what each man thinks about a woman's right to have a say in the uses of her body by the way they did their respective jobs.

you are conflating Constitutional rulings with personal character. That is bogus and dangerous.
Judges rule on facts of a case, or in a SCOTUS case (sometimes) the Constitutionality of the case.
You are saying a judge who doesn't follow your agenda is innately hostile to women.
You are personalizing case law.

At least one of those is now outraged to find out that Kavanaugh was listing himself as an "alumnus" of her in his yearbook, as part of a sick pattern of bragging by his crowd about their supposed sexual conquests. It really tells you something about the man that even when he tried to hand-pick a list of women he'd not treated badly, he still managed to pick one he'd treated badly. Don't you think? I would have expected that ANY man, no matter how screwed up, could come up with a list of women he hadn't badly disrespected, without accidentally including one he had.

1 in 65 is a very small % and the others have heldfast, and I've seen a few interviewed.
They don't just defend him, they say he has been good to them or is of upstanding character.

I don't think Judge K "picked" them either -they seemed to self organize ( I could be wrong)

 

[Truth Detector]

Agreed. Throughout his presidency, he fought hard for women's issues. Kavanaugh, by comparison, is famously the biggest threat to women's control over their own bodies when it comes to abortion, and possibly even contraception. We can tell a lot about what each man thinks about a woman's right to have a say in the uses of her body by the way they did their respective jobs.

At least one of those is now outraged to find out that Kavanaugh was listing himself as an "alumnus" of her in his yearbook, as part of a sick pattern of bragging by his crowd about their supposed sexual conquests. It really tells you something about the man that even when he tried to hand-pick a list of women he'd not treated badly, he still managed to pick one he'd treated badly. Don't you think? I would have expected that ANY man, no matter how screwed up, could come up with a list of women he hadn't badly disrespected, without accidentally including one he had.

Therein is the BIG lie. That Kavanaugh is the greatest threat to women's control over their own bodies when it comes to abortion. Therefore, once we have demonized a good man who has done nothing to threaten anyone, it is okay to smear him, lie about him, degrade him, impugn him and embarrass him in front of his family, his daughters, his friends and work peers.

You people are beyond low lives with shit like this.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

There is NOTHING that can be remotely compared with between Cosby and Kavanaugh you dishonest dunce. NOTHING. Attempting to do so is merely more evidence of the growing lunacy of the left and partisan hacks who think it is fun to ruin a man's 35 year reputation over nothing more than "because she said so."

All I compared was the "stable family man w/ good career" qualifier. It's meaningless. I'm not saying that Kav is guilty - just that Darth's example of "proof" is meaningless.

Read it again. Think about it this time.

 

[Oneuli]

Oh, I don’t know. I thought this was a big deal.

The timeline is no big deal. Hell, Garland waited 293 days without so much as a single hearing, so this nominee is already doing much better. If need be, we could even drop him and go with another option, and he could reapply at some future point for the next seat. He's only 53 years old. He could wait another ten years for the next opening and STILL be the same age as Garland was when he was nominated. Thanks to the Republican tendency to try to stack the court by nominating under-experienced judges like Kavanaugh, who can have extremely long tours on the bench before they die, he's in a position where there's no rush to move forward with him. We have all the time in the world to vet him.

 

[Truth Detector]

What's the rush?

Yeah, no big deal right snowflake? Why hurry? Why report it for 35 years? Why give the letter to the Senate Judicial committee? Why leak the letter? Why not smear a good man for more weeks, perhaps even months. After all, this is all fun to you repugnant asshats isn't it? You showed those darned Republicans not to mess with lowlife liberals didn't you??

 

[Truth Detector]

All I compared was the "stable family man w/ good career" qualifier. It's meaningless. I'm not saying that Kav is guilty - just that Darth's example of "proof" is meaningless.

Read it again. Think about it this time.

You can't even lie without looking foolish. It's only meaningless if you are a dishonest dunce. What we do know is this:

FACTS: (1) the woman never filed a formal complaint....for 35 years; (2) She can't remember the exact date; (3) She can't remember the address or location where this occurred; (4) She can't rem,ember who was actually at this party; (5) She can't remember the year it occurred; (6) Christine Blasey Ford's own classmate who Ford said was an eyewitness denies any knowledge of what Ford claims; (7) Ford never thought it important enough to come forward when Kavanaugh was nominated to serve on the Federal bench, why?; and (8) The letter remained anonymous and never reported to the Chair of the Senate Judiciary committee nor anyone on the board. It was secretly leaked to the media.

 

[Truth Detector]

The timeline is no big deal. Hell, Garland waited 293 days without so much as a single hearing, so this nominee is already doing much better. If need be, we could even drop him and go with another option, and he could reapply at some future point for the next seat. He's only 53 years old. He could wait another ten years for the next opening and STILL be the same age as Garland was when he was nominated. Thanks to the Republican tendency to try to stack the court by nominating under-experienced judges like Kavanaugh, who can have extremely long tours on the bench before they die, he's in a position where there's no rush to move forward with him. We have all the time in the world to vet him.

Was Garland smeared? Did Democrats declare that the Senate should withhold nominations before Presidents leave office and wait until AFTER the elections are decided?

But suddenly, smearing a good man for purely partisan purposes in front of his family, friends and associates is fair game? STFU, seriously.

In 2007, approximately 18 months before President George W. Bush left office, Sen. Chuck Schumer said the Senate "should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances."

 

[Althea]

Obviously there is no 'fascist left' - that is a contradiction in terms. Trump wants to set up a total dictatorship, modified only be total inefficiency, incoherence and incompetence.. If that's what you want...!

Success relies on citizens like the OP

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

You can't even lie without looking foolish. It's only meaningless if you are a dishonest dunce. What we do know is this:

FACTS: (1) the woman never filed a formal complaint....for 35 years; (2) She can't remember the exact date; (3) She can't remember the address or location where this occurred; (4) She can't rem,ember who was actually at this party; (5) She can't remember the year it occurred; (6) Christine Blasey Ford's own classmate who Ford said was an eyewitness denies any knowledge of what Ford claims; (7) Ford never thought it important enough to come forward when Kavanaugh was nominated to serve on the Federal bench, why?; and (8) The letter remained anonymous and never reported to the Chair of the Senate Judiciary committee nor anyone on the board. It was secretly leaked to the media.

Goalpost move. You're arguing something completely different.

Really - take my advice. Think once in awhile. Just step back and actually think before responding.

 

[Althea]

i do like that we are up to gang rape now. In the space of like a week we went from normal guy to attempted rape to gang rapist lol.

Now you know why Senate Republicans are refusing to allow any documentation of his history to be released.

 

[reagansghost]

He's had SIX you willful idiot. You think SEVEN is the magic number??? STFU; you're a serious mental case that shouldn't even be walking among the public.

did the FBI investigate Ford and the others' accusations?

can you really be this stupid, stupid?

 

[Althea]

The GOP has been smearing candidates for decades and decades, it's what they do

stuff it whiny snowflakes and grow up

Kinda cute how a guy who never leaves his house, quotes the Federalist in defense of a nominee who was suggested by the Federalist Society.

Gotta be credible.

 

[Althea]

Avenatti brought us Cohen, served on a platter. You may not like him, but he delivers and he has said his client is believable. He has to much at stake at this point to be wrong.

They would love Avenati if Clinton were POTUS, and he was working to uncover her dirty secrets.

 

[Althea]

Lol, predictable answer from you. Avenatti also gave us Trump’s accountant.

And trump. That Cohen recording with trump is the nail in the coffin. Why do you think trump NEEDS a SC justice who believes that POTUS is above the law?

 

[Althea]

You are confusing the two women, Ford wasn’t a recovered memory, get your facts straight.

Cohen wasn’t Trump’s accountant, I was talking about Weiselberg, remember him.

Why should this be in good faith? (I don't see his posts). Garland was not handled in 'good faith'.

 

[Oneuli]

There you go pretending that this laughably weak claim is something it is not.

What am I pretending it is? What it is, is a claim by a highly accomplished academic who says Kavanaugh tried to rape her when she was fifteen years old. It is a claim with no supporting physical evidence or direct third-party corroboration, but with third-party evidence that at least establishes that her story long predates the Kavanaugh nomination.

Ford never thought it important enough to come forward when Kavanaugh was nominated to serve on the Federal bench, why?

That's a fair question for her to be asked when she testifies. I don't know what her answer would be, but I can certainly see a woman deciding that the hell she'd inevitably go through for messing with Republican plans wasn't worth it just to try to stop her attacker from serving on a lower court, but it was enough once it was about a higher court, where the damage he could do to women was much greater. Or maybe she just wasn't in a place, in terms of emotional strength, to think she could withstand the inevitable character assassination years back when he was previously nominated, but she feels she has grown tougher since then and is willing to do it.

but most with the intelligence of a gnat can see right through this scam and smear campaign.

Yes, I've noticed that those of you with the intelligence of a gnat all see this the same way, with absolute, lock-step uniformity. Actual thinking people, on the other hand, have a variety of views on this, with widely differing levels of certainty about what may have happened.

A good man and his family are now being dragged through the mud

Neither you nor I knows whether he's a good man or an attempted rapist. That's what we're trying to determine. Perhaps when they're questioned under oath about these charges we will have more of an idea.

 

[Truth Detector]

Goalpost move. You're arguing something completely different.

Really - take my advice. Think once in awhile. Just step back and actually think before responding.

Now you are lying again; the only one's trying to move goalposts here are liars like you and your leftist pals. I wish you would think before you post instead of emote.

 

[Oneuli]

you are conflating Constitutional rulings with personal character.

I am judging his character in part by how he views the law. If someone is quick to doubt that women have a right to exercise control over their own bodies when it comes to things like sex and reproduction, I think that tells us a lot about his character. Whether that's part of a wider pattern of behavior of sexually abusing women remains to be seen. So far all we have are the claims of two women, neither of which claims, so far, has been made under oath.

Judges rule on facts of a case

Kavanaugh has never ruled on the facts of a case. He didn't start by paying his dues as a trial court judge. He was a far-right-wing ideologue, whom the Republicans wanted to promote as fast as possible to the highest court, so they started him as an appeals judge, where it's not permitted to rule on the facts of a case. His rulings were always about legal principles. His legal principles are authoritarian and anti-feminist. That doesn't prove he's an attempted rapist, of course. But it is consistent with the rulings we'd expect from such a person.

You are saying a judge who doesn't follow your agenda is innately hostile to women.

I am not. Please reread. There are a great many things a judge could rule on that I would disagree with, the vast majority of which would provide no insight at all into his thoughts about women. However, when a judge does rule on issues of particular importance to women, in particular, it does provide insight into his thoughts about them.

1 in 65 is a very small %

Even 1 in 500 would be high, if your task was to find 500 women you'd treated well, and you still managed to list one you'd treated very badly.

I don't think Judge K "picked" them either -they seemed to self organize ( I could be wrong)

That's the story, but I'd bet it's BS. These aren't even classmates -- he went to an all-boys school. This was a political operation.... the Republicans knew there were stories out there about his conduct towards women in high school, and they'd prepped a quick response for it before anything came out.

 

[Truth Detector]

Now you know why Senate Republicans are refusing to allow any documentation of his history to be released.

What documentation? That's the problem with this whole nasty hyped up partisan smear. There is no documentation; just unsubstantiated allegations where the witnesses are saying the event never occurred. What part of this are you willful idiots and liars not comprehending?

 

[Oneuli]

Therein is the BIG lie. That Kavanaugh is the greatest threat to women's control over their own bodies when it comes to abortion. Therefore, once we have demonized a good man who has done nothing to threaten anyone, it is okay to smear him, lie about him, degrade him, impugn him and embarrass him in front of his family, his daughters, his friends and work peers.

You people are beyond low lives with shit like this.

Again, neither you nor I knows whether he's a good man. You assume so because you like his politics. I'm taking a wait-and-see approach, and will tailor my view in part to what comes out in these hearings.