Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

It's happened before.  Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg after Robert Bork was voted down by the Senate.  His use of marijuana and a couple of other things raised concerns for some senators and on November 7, 1987, he was withdrawn.  Four days later, Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Reagan.

George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers and after opposition from both sides of the aisle, her name was withdrawn on October 27, 2005.  Four days later on October 31st, Bush nominated Samuel Alito.

Added some stuff to that post. What’re your thoughts?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If you are testifying under oath before Congress, then it falls under federal jurisdiction.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-congress.html

Exactly. that's my point.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

Exactly. that's my point.

What's your point?  Lying to Congress is a federal crime regardless of when or if the FBI does an investigation.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What precedent might it set out? Might it incentivize unsubstantiated or frivolous claims against public nominees?

Any more than Anita Hill's claims did for Clarence Thomas?  We didn't see a rash of sexual misconduct claims against conservative SCOTUS nominees in the wake of that.   Do you think that going to the mat for Kavanaugh is worth the possibility of either forcing/rushing his confirmation through on party lines, then finding out after he's on the court that more evidence comes out linking him to sexual misconduct and having to remove him?  Or is it worth the hearings dragging out past the midterms and risk losing the window to control the confirmation while you have the majority?

[WDavE 332]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Such as?

On the Ford accusation, everyone else that was supposedly in the room.

On the second accusation the only thing close to collaborating  evidence is from a person who heard about the incident from someone else.

Plus the idiot representative from Hawaii has come out and stated she could tell Kavanaugh was guilty while just talking to him before the accusation were made public. What an anomaly she is. a democratic. female liberal with esp. Wait till Netflix finds out!

 

It just doesn't get more definitive then all of this. Unless of course, you were the accused and this was the evidence against you. Then you would be hollering at the top of your lungs.

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,964]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

See my edit to Titan also. If BK is pulled, do we risk an unhealthy precedent? Incentive unsubstantiated and/or frivolous claims?

We’re buried in unhealthy precedents. Republicans can choose their priority. But if they think they ultimately lose, they can speed the process and get a win. Let’s not fool ourselves— this is all about outcomes for the Rs.

If worries about unsubstantiated allegations, have the FBI quietly investigate.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

26 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

IMO, her devout Catholicism would not be tolerated by opposition, unfortunately.

Interesting comment, but I'm confused.  Which opposition are you speaking of here?  Lots of Dems are Catholic, so I'm a bit confused.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If you stick with one of the people on the short list:  Barrett, Kethledge or Hardiman, you'll blunt that charge.  So, yes, it's realistic to withdraw Kavanaugh now, name a new nominee in short order, and move forward.

Hardiman likely sails. And no prep school.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Any more than Anita Hill's claims did for Clarence Thomas?  We didn't see a rash of sexual misconduct claims against conservative SCOTUS nominees in the wake of that.   Do you think that going to the mat for Kavanaugh is worth the possibility of either forcing/rushing his confirmation through on party lines, then finding out after he's on the court that more evidence comes out linking him to sexual misconduct and having to remove him?  Or is it worth the hearings dragging out past the midterms and risk losing the window to control the confirmation while you have the majority?

Do you think the concern is valid?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Interesting comment, but I'm confused.  Which opposition are you speaking of here?  Lots of Dems are Catholic, so I'm a bit confused.

She got some snide remarks from Dianne Feinstein when she was being nominated to the federal courts over it.  Something like "the dogma lives loud within you" or some such.  But I doubt it would be a real roadblock.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

She got some snide remarks from Dianne Feinstein when she was being nominated to the federal courts over it.  Something like "the dogma lives loud within you" or some such.  But I doubt it would be a real roadblock.

Gotcha.  Yeah, I don't think it would be a hurdle either.  Going back to Kennedy, Catholics have long been a part of the Democratic party.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Do you think the concern is valid?

I get why it would come to mind.  I don't think it's a serious concern.  I especially don't think it's worth the alternative downsides to digging in our heels on this one.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Interesting comment, but I'm confused.  Which opposition are you speaking of here?  Lots of Dems are Catholic, so I'm a bit confused.

I’m referencing Dems to the exclusion of the ones who are “middle of the road.”. A lot of catholic dogmatics are counter to many ideologies held by the left. Abortion, for starters.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

I get why it would come to mind.  I don't think it's a serious concern.  I especially don't think it's worth the alternative downsides to digging in our heels on this one.

Time will tell.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m referencing Dems to the exclusion of the ones who are “middle of the road.”. A lot of catholic dogmatics are counter to many ideologies held by the left. Abortion, for starters.

Even if we go with your train of thought here, she wouldn't get that same opposition from the Republicans.  So even if she went through on party lines, she'd still go through.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m referencing Dems to the exclusion of the ones who are “middle of the road.”. A lot of catholic dogmatics are counter to many ideologies held by the left. Abortion, for starters.

Make sense.  But if that were the case, we could eliminate pretty much any judge who had a religious belief because I don't know one segment of Christianity that's usually OK with abortion.  Like I said to Titan's post, just don't see it as a real roadblock for her.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I get why it would come to mind.  I don't think it's a serious concern.  I especially don't think it's worth the alternative downsides to digging in our heels on this one.

This is where I'm at from a practical standpoint, and I'm not a conservative leaning guy when it comes to the courts.  Just seems dumb to me that the Rs would risk a potentially decades long conservative strangle-hold on the SC over one man.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Even if we go with your train of thought here, she wouldn't get that same opposition from the Republicans.  So even if she went through on party lines, she'd still go through.

This is where I would tie in the “stop at all costs” tactic, if it is shown that unsubstantiated claims have the force of preventing an appointment. I hope I am wrong. 

Even if BK does withdraw or is pulled, it will be interesting to see if he takes legal action. He has recourse at the civil level, given that these are actual crimes he is being accused of.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

This is where I'm at from a practical standpoint, and I'm not a conservative leaning guy when it comes to the courts.  Just seems dumb to me that the Rs would risk a potentially decades long conservative strangle-hold on the SC over one man.

Just my opinion, but if any other Republican were in the White House right now under these circumstances, I think he'd already be withdrawn.  I think the main thing keeping him on the clock is stubbornness.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Make sense.  But if that were the case, we could eliminate pretty much any judge who had a religious belief because I don't know one segment of Christianity that's usually OK with abortion.  Like I said to Titan's post, just don't see it as a real roadblock for her.

Sorry multitasking- I didn’t mean it would stop her, just mean it would be a huge hurdle. I think another poster alluded to the same.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

This is where I would tie in the “stop at all costs” tactic, if it is shown that unsubstantiated claims have the force of preventing an appointment. I hope I am wrong. 

Even if BK does withdraw or is pulled, it will be interesting to see if he takes legal action. He has recourse at the civil level, given that these are actual crimes he is being accused of.

I'd be shocked if he did.  If he walks away, he can still deny and claim he was unfairly targeted.  Besides going back to his cushy federal court job, he'd make a mint in any law firm he chose to join.  And don't even get me started on the speaking circuit he'd rake cash from.  But if he goes into a courtroom and is cross examined by a real defense attorney where the standard isn't "reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of the evidence," he stands to lose a lot.  He'd better be 100% damn sure of himself.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sorry multitasking- I didn’t mean it would stop her, just mean it would be a huge hurdle. I think another poster alluded to the same.

Eh.  Alito is a devout Catholic as is John Roberts.  It usually gets brought up mostly to question their position on Roe.  That's about as far as it would get.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I'd be shocked if he did.  If he walks away, he can still deny and claim he was unfairly targeted.  Besides going back to his cushy federal court job, he'd make a mint in any law firm he chose to join.  And don't even get me started on the speaking circuit he'd rake cash from.  But if he goes into a courtroom and is cross examined by a real defense attorney where the standard isn't "reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of the evidence," he stands to lose a lot.  He'd better be 100% damn sure of himself.

I think he would have a strong case in the tort context. 

Could he go back to his DC circuit job? I really don’t know. He took an oath for that position too. I think we’d still need a determination on the same claims.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Eh.  Alito is a devout Catholic as is John Roberts.  It usually gets brought up mostly to question their position on Roe.  That's about as far as it would get.

I think the difference is that they haven’t been nearly as vocal about their Catholic beliefs as has Barrett. That is what distinguishes it for me.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

33 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What's your point?  Lying to Congress is a federal crime regardless of when or if the FBI does an investigation.

Dang you accuse me of being dense sometimes. I agree BUT neither one has lied to congress yet. Hence my suggestion that the FBI do an investigation AFTER the hearing.