The Garland/Barrett shenanigans were at least strategic. Kavanaugh was even worse in my opinion. There was nothing special about that man. They could have easily dumped him as soon as the credible accusation against him came out. There are plenty of other judges with similar ideology and opinions that could have replaced him and provided the exact same impact on the court. There was no strategic reason to stick by him. The only reason was to prove a point about not caring about these accusations.
The only way that any more than a couple Republicans vote to remove Thomas or Gorsuch is if they see an opportunity to replace an older conservative justice with a younger conservative justice.
Forget the rape accusation, I don't understand how his behavior at the review didn't get him disqualified.
Just the unhinged rants about beer and clinton alone were shocking.
And I can't "prove" this, but he straight up lied about those definitions like "devil's triangle", "boofing", etc. Those terms are extremely common, have well defined definitions and seemed like they were used in those contexts (parties). No doubt in my mind he lied about that. If he lies about simple stuff like that then God knows how much worse it can get.
Your comment reminds me of a quote from the movie Charlie Wilson's War:
"Well if anyone asks what the hell I'm doing on the ethics committee we'll just tell them I like chasing women and drinking whisky and the Speaker felt we were underrepresented."
In other words, even people who like to party deserve representation in government.
And as for lying about "devil's triangle", apparently several classmates from both Georgetown Prep and Boston College have confirmed his definition:
> And as for lying about "devil's triangle", apparently several classmates have confirmed his definition:
I am not going to debate this. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that anything can be debated, and with so many moving parts here, it's very easy to muddy the waters.
As an example, you linked an article where you chose to highlight friends of kavanaugh, impartial members, backing his claims and ignoring that others such as his roomate disagreed with those claims.
Here's the other thing I don't really get about these conservative types though. To a man, they claim that their Christian faith is extremely important to them. Like any good Catholic child, I was compelled to study the bible and while I took very little interest in it, my impression was that that sort of behavior was considered sinful and something one should seek to avoid and atone for if you should engage in sins involving bed and bottle. Things like this are why I've been an atheist from a single-digit age; I don't know much about the divine, but it doesn't seem like the people who claim to believe this stuff actually believe it either.
Leverage, pure and simple. He is absolutely beholden to them because they can ruin his career and life by turning on him at any wrong move by...just...telling the truth.
I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation. Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans? They were even more credible and provided only a minor delay in his appointment. If you want that sort of behavior to matter you need to elect better representatives.
>I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation.
Anyone who knows anything about sexual assault would dismiss this as a serious threat to the credibility of the accusation. There was no reason for her to publicly make the accusation earlier. There is documentation of her privately making the accusation years before Kavanaugh's nomination.
>Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans?
The hope was that society progressed in those nearly 30 years between the two nominations.
We need a different process, and no, I don't know what. But the current system is electing people based on sound-bites and posturing. The results, which are terrible, speak for themselves.
>- The accuser's story had a number of missing (and, IIRC, contradictory) details
No one's memory is perfect after nearly 40 years.
>- There were no corroborating witnesses
What witnesses do you expect? The direct witnesses would have been implicating themselves. There were witnesses and evidence that showed she talked about these accusations years before Kavanaugh's nomination.
>- Kavanaugh's own personal calendar from the year in question has no entries for the party at which the assault allegedly happened
A teenage not documenting their illicit behavior is a rather weak argument that they never participated in said illicit behavior.
> No one's memory is perfect after nearly 40 years.
Indeed! Which is one of the reasons why we should question her accusation! How can we be sure she even accurately remembers who committed the assault? It might very well have been that she was assaulted, but by someone else. It could also be that it was Kavanaugh, but the interaction played out differently that she remembers.
> What witnesses do you expect? The direct witnesses would have been implicating themselves. There were witnesses and evidence that showed she talked about these accusations years before Kavanaugh's nomination.
She named witnesses to the actual event (or at least the party at which it took place) and none of them corroborated her story. They wouldn't have even been implicating themselves in the assault.
As I recall, she did talk about the incident years after it happened (long enough for details to have become muddled) but as I recall she didn't name Kavanaugh until after his nomination.
> A teenage not documenting their illicit behavior is a rather weak argument that they never participated in said illicit behavior.
Kavanaugh kept a fairly detailed social calendar. In conjunction with the fact that none of the other supposed attendees to this party remembers it happening, significantly undermines credibility of the accusation.
The only way that any more than a couple Republicans vote to remove Thomas or Gorsuch is if they see an opportunity to replace an older conservative justice with a younger conservative justice.