• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bad Opinions About Kavanaugh

Which is why I find Kavenaugh's statements suspect.

That would be fine if your sense of justice is guilty until proven innocent.
 
I looked at a few articles regarding the law professors who signed the letter against Kavanaugh. What I could not find is the political leanings of those professors. Anyone have a clue as to how many are left leaning vs. right leaning?
 
Substantiated claim: Kavanaugh was an unruly frat boy who drank too much

Substantiated claim: Kavanaugh denied he was unruly frat boy who drank too much then he went on a partisan rant when he testified about it.

Those two substantiated claims together are all anyone really needs to have a legitimate reason not to support Kavanaugh.

All the rest can be conjecture, it does not change those two facts.

Kavanaugh was supported by some big dark money. Not liberal money. Not conservative money. Corporate money. The kind that wants to push the interests of a certain class of people over everyone else.

None of that is relevant even if the allegations about drinking are true.

You guys should not be trashing the presumption of innocence. You might need it some day.
 
Substantiated claim: Kavanaugh was an unruly frat boy who drank too much

Substantiated claim: Kavanaugh denied he was unruly frat boy who drank too much then he went on a partisan rant when he testified about it.

Those two substantiated claims together are all anyone really needs to have a legitimate reason not to support Kavanaugh.

All the rest can be conjecture, it does not change those two facts.

Kavanaugh was supported by some big dark money. Not liberal money. Not conservative money. Corporate money. The kind that wants to push the interests of a certain class of people over everyone else.

And he lied regarding the comments he made in his yearbook.

Surely lying while under oath should disqualify a SC candidate?

If not, if this is the best America can produce, that's quite the indictment regarding the character of Americans in general.
 
Last edited:
None of that is relevant even if the allegations about drinking are true.

You guys should not be trashing the presumption of innocence. You might need it some day.

Any post you type that includes "you guys" should prompt immediate self reflection. What is your evidence that the person you are speaking to belongs to "you guys"? I am a moderate, registered Independent, who trends libertarian. Does that put me in "you guys"?
 
The first really stupid opinion about Kavanaugh was that he definitely assaulted Ford.

The other really stupid opinion about Kavanaugh was that he definitely didn't do anything wrong with Ford.

Neither opinion can be proven. I'm not convinced that either side really believed what they were saying. If they did then they are unbelievably stupid, as in way to stupid to find their way to the Capital Building.

People were being called gender traitors if they were women and didn't believe Ford 100% and misogynists if they were men and didn't believe Ford 100%, but this is stupid. Ford's accusation could not be proved or even corroborated.

People were being called left wing scumbags and the like if they didn't believe that Kavanaugh is totally innocent, but this is stupid, too. There's no way to prove that, either.

The only rational way to address such an accusation, which can't be proved one way or the other, is to ignore it. It should not have been a factor in the decision to confirm Kavanaugh.

Even if the charge were proven I'm not convinced it should have mattered. The event supposedly took place when the two of them were teenagers in high school.

As for the other crap, it was so unbelievable it hurt the Democrats' case. This was more stuff that some Democrats pretended to believe, but I don't believe they did. As skeptical as I am of the intelligence of left wingers, they have to be smarter than that.

Now that Kavanaugh is confirmed we can look forward to nothing much in terms of the court. Roe isn't going to be overturned. I don't even see 3 votes in favor of that on the court, much less 5. We were not going to see the Second Amendment significantly restricted no matter who got on the court. Most of the rulings SCOTUS makes is about dry technical stuff you never heard of decided by easy majorities.

People are saying that people will die as a result of this, but I don't believe them. They said that people would die over Net Neutrality and over Tax Cuts, and nobody died then either.

Whether Ford's charges were true or not, the democrats overplayed their hand. They already had a very weak case with no collaborating witnesses, they kept attempting to dog pile onto the Ford accusation with further allegations which quickly became ludicrous, for instance the rape train. if there was any credibility to the Ford accusation, additional fishing expeditions diminished it. And there was also the fact that the democrats held the accusation for months not sharing it with the committee, intending to use it as an 11:00 foil to the confirmation. And to be honest, the Democrats fighting the confirmation had nothing to do with Roe Vs Wade. They know that it's not going to be overturned. They don't give two ****s about the abortion issue, other then to use it for fund raising. They were simply attempting to prevent conservatives from getting controlling numbers on the US Supreme Court. The left has been using the court as a super legislative branch. Kavanaugh's confirmation ended that, at least for a generation. And while we may never know for certain what if anything happened to Dr Ford, I personally do not believe anything in her accusation was real. My personal gauge of believing or not believing when there is no evidence is to listen to women who have worked with or otherwise known the accused for all of their adult lifetime. Men who commit sexual assault cannot control themselves and do it again and again and again unless convicted and put behind bars. The wome who have known Kavanaugh give him nothing but praise.
 
Women who have been assaulted with no witnesses and no evidence remember very well when it happened, where it happened, how they got to that location, how they left that location ... unless they suffer from amnesia ... in which case they wouldn't remember how many beers exactly they had either.

Perhaps alcohol induced amnesia in many cases. Most who are charged with alcohol related crimes claim: "I only had a couple beers", etc.
 
Know what would be better? Start reporting the assault asap. In this day and age there is no excuse not to. The sooner a crime is reported the more likely of any conviction.

Things to do when assaulted be it rape or otherwise:

1: Report it the very second you get a chance to.
2: Do NOT shower so that the evidence that is on your body is not washed away. Yes, they can pull fingerprints from skin provided you get to the right authority fast enough. On top of this there is other types of evidence that they can pull from your body.
3: Accept the fact that YES, what you went through is embarrassing as all hell and going through the process of getting the person that assaulted you will continue the embarrassment. But also by doing this you will prevent the person from doing the same thing to someone else. And yes, I realize that this is far easier said than done. One thing to consider also is that if those that are assaulted start doing this more often the more other people will feel secure in doing this also because they will be seeing far better results than what there is currently because they wait so long in reporting.
4: Criticize, condemn, ostracize ANYONE that does this frivolously or maliciously when/if it is proven that they did so frivolously/maliciously. This will reduce the cases where this is done which will up the chances of those being assaulted being believed.

What we can do as a society:

1: STOP automatically condemning anybody that comes out and makes a claim. Wait for evidence/corroboration. When evidence/corroboration is shown then DEMAND that the perp be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

2: If no evidence/corroboration is provided THEN and only THEN criticize, condemn, and ostracize them. Note: This is not optimal, but it must be done as a way to encourage people to report ASAP so that it will be far harder to condemn/criticize/ostracize as the sooner they report the better the odds of there being EVIDENCE.

3: Start a program in elementary schools on up that talks about this very important issue. Lower grades keep it simple. Higher grades explain in more detail. ENCOURAGE reporting of assault. The program must also give examples of proper reporting and false reporting so that kids understand the difference. Many schools already do this all this to an extent but its more of an aside thing than anything else. It needs more importance poured into it. In fact I wouldn't mind making it an actual class/period thing.

4: Get rid of the identity politics. IE: stop talking about it in terms of gender and recognize that it happens to both females AND males. It doesn't matter that it happens to one gender more than the other. Both are equally wrong, disgusting, and should not happen PERIOD.

*note: When I say "assault" I'm including ALL types of assault as this should apply to all types. Not just sexual assault.

And yes, I'm quite positive that some will take exception to some of what I have stated here. Particularly the second point of what we can do as a society. But remember, I'm thinking about solving this for the long term, in the short term there really is nothing that we can do if we are to keep things fair and NOT condemn someone that is innocent. Yes, it sucks as while it is fair to do it this way its also unfair to those that have had something done to them in the past. But in the long run we would be better off as a society, which is what we need to be considering in order to actually solve this permanently. Sometimes you have to make a sacrifice for the greater good and I think this is one of those times. Again, this is NOT optimal, but it IS necessary in the long run.

The democrats incessantly used the term "brave" and "hero" to describe Dr Ford for reporting an alleged assault from over 30 years ago. My opinion of a brave victim is one who reports such an assault ASP when it occurs, despite all of the embarrassment and second guessing they go through. Dr Ford despite having no collaborating witnesses just had too much to gain from making the accusation, starting with a Go Fund Me account that has already provided her in excess of one million dollars.
 
The signed statement of a bunch of left leaning academics who have no special insight into the matter and employ the weasel term "judicial temperament", the meaning of which isn't even clear, isn't worth a bucket of spit.

The matter is settled. Have a nice day.

Yes, dude I know "the matter is settled". Whether you like it or not, the opinions of legal scholars are more relevant that yours. The subject of your thread was about "opinions" of that snot-nosed, entitled, right-wing hack just confirmed to SCOTUS. If you'd prefer your thread to be just a right-wing echo chamber I'll take my leave.
 
They should "feel free to take justice upon themselves" but they should do it "using the system". That's incoherent.

If they "take justice upon themselves" then they act illegally, and they will pay the penalty for that. Because, guess what, the desire for revenge is often wrong, the target of revenge is often innocent, no matter how much the aggrieved party believes otherwise.

So there will be some mistakes. The legal system is full of those. Including those is makes when it chooses to ignore a complaint or even run the damn rape kit.
 
That would be fine if your sense of justice is guilty until proven innocent.

I believe the law says people are innocent until proven guilty. But if there is no investigation, then there will be no evidence, no trial and possibly, no justice. My opinion is that he is lying. Maybe about what happened with Ford, maybe not. But he is lying about his younger self.
 
You jump me in a bar when I'm not looking, I'm going to respond in kind at a time of my choosing. Justice is personal. As personal as it gets. And if I can't get justice through the system, I'll get on my own. Maybe if more of the Kavenaughs out there thought that was a likely outcome, they wouldn't behave like that.
No, just no. There's a reason the Bible also says "revenge is mine, I shall repay, saith The Lord." The whole eye for an eye thing was what the justice system is suppose to administer, not you.
 
No, just no. There's a reason the Bible also says "revenge is mine, I shall repay, saith The Lord." The whole eye for an eye thing was what the justice system is suppose to administer, not you.

So what's the semi-auto for? Is it really a cell phone to call for law enforcement? Maybe to call your lawyer? Or is it to dispense immediate justice at your hand?
 
So what's the semi-auto for? Is it really a cell phone to call for law enforcement? Maybe to call your lawyer? Or is it to dispense immediate justice at your hand?

It's to defend myself from an immediate lethal threat. I'm not executing justice, I'm simply preserving my life. There's a difference between defending yourself from an immediate threat and exacting revenge long after the threat is no longer there.
 
Only three people know the truth.

Regardless, how can you not do better?
I mean, your country is full of brilliant, talented people and that guy is what has ascended to the Supreme Court?
He makes Bill Clinton look honest and faithful.
 
It's to defend myself from an immediate lethal threat. I'm not executing justice, I'm simply preserving my life. There's a difference between defending yourself from an immediate threat and exacting revenge long after the threat is no longer there.

Why? Of course there is a difference, but seriously, why should it be considered different based only on elapsed time? A person knows they were assaulted by someone. There is no evidence at the time to prove the identity of said assailant. Later, that person is on the news for a non-related crime. Justice via the system is attempted, but is not realized.
If denied justice, I reserve the right to justice at my hand. And whether you want to admit it or not, your claim of self defense is no different as you are claiming a "fear for your life", for the self administration of justice.
 
Why? Of course there is a difference, but seriously, why should it be considered different based only on elapsed time?
Because time directly correlates with threat level. Me shooting you as you're trying to rob me is me preserving myself from potential harm. Me waiting until you're done, track you to your house, and torturing you to death is unjustified and uncalled for.

A person knows they were assaulted by someone. There is no evidence at the time to prove the identity of said assailant. Later, that person is on the news for a non-related crime. Justice via the system is attempted, but is not realized.
If denied justice, I reserve the right to justice at my hand.
No, you don't.
And whether you want to admit it or not, your claim of self defense is no different as you are claiming a "fear for your life", for the self administration of justice.

I can't help you if you can't distinguish between preserving your life and exacting revenge.
 
Back
Top Bottom