5 ms·

> I don't understand this. Kavanaugh hasnt been proven to be guilty. Has he been proven guilty of Ford’s allegations? No, he will very likely never be. Has he

> I don't understand this. Kavanaugh hasnt been proven to be guilty. Has he been proven guilty of Ford’s allegations? No, he will very likely never be. Has he done something that should bar him from being a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice? Very much so and can conclusively be proven. Lying on the stand[0] is something not allowed for anyone, but most assuredly shouldn’t be allowed to slide for Supreme Court justices, IMHO. [0] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh...

jki275 8y ago
There are a whole lot of words in that article that don't prove the assertion in the headline. You literally cannot in any way prove anything he said was a lie.
- jsjohnst 8y ago
  Did you read the article? At the very minimum you can prove the “four denials” or “refutal” as being a lie. While it might seem minor to a lay person, a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice should understand there’s a stark legal difference between “denying/refuting something happened” vs “I don’t recall that happening”. And that’s just one thing you can prove, the article goes at length with good sourcing to prove more.
  - jki275 8y ago
    I read it all. You can't prove any of that as false. The article is a biased hit piece making allegations that are not provable. In fact, it makes assertions that have been refuted already by other people who were in K's circle of friends and some who were not (devil's triangle). BTW, I'm not asserting that it is impossible that reasonable people might listen to his testimony and think he was lying. Calling something "proof" is a very different thing.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      I'm not the person you're replying to but I find it terribly sad to see how much you folks (Americans) lowered the bar to accepting someone into the supreme court. Partisanship is ok. Off-the-handle emotional responses are ok. Continuous strings of allegations "no big deal cause we don't have a cryptographically-signed videotape of it". That 2400 law professors [0], groups like Human Rights Watch [1], the National Council of Churches [2], or even (republican) Justice Stevens himself[3] vehemently oppose his nominations, that raises no alarm bells. I don't get it. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone shrugging this stuff off had even heard of Kavanaugh before, and yet HE is the one who must be appointed to this lifetime position of Supreme Court Judge. HE is the one who meets the standards to reside over the country's most important cases. What is it about this guy you like so much? Could it be that your party is telling you "it's all a democrat ploy" and you're just... following orders? I don't even know why republican voters care this much. There's far more capable and better-suited republican candidates available if Kavanaugh is rejected. Or do you think this sorry excuse of a judge is what "best of the best" looks like? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavan... [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/05/human-rights-watch-opposes-nomination-brett-kavanaugh-us-supreme-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/05/human-rights-watch-oppos... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/04/national-council-churches-makes-rare-statement-oppose-kavanaugh/?utm_term=.87d9e8f89eee https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/04/national-... [3] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-kavanaugh/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-ju...
      - HBlix 8y ago
        It comes down to this: they believe that he’ll swing the court in favor of their chosen policies, be it restricting abortion or whatever else. If Bill Cosby or Ted Bundy were in a position to do that, they’d defend them too. It’s not about good faith arguments, it’s 100% about the end result, and the ends justifying the means.
        scrollaway 8y ago

jki275 8y ago

There are a whole lot of words in that article that don't prove the assertion in the headline. You literally cannot in any way prove anything he said was a lie.

jsjohnst 8y ago
Did you read the article? At the very minimum you can prove the “four denials” or “refutal” as being a lie. While it might seem minor to a lay person, a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice should understand there’s a stark legal difference between “denying/refuting something happened” vs “I don’t recall that happening”. And that’s just one thing you can prove, the article goes at length with good sourcing to prove more.
- jki275 8y ago
  I read it all. You can't prove any of that as false. The article is a biased hit piece making allegations that are not provable. In fact, it makes assertions that have been refuted already by other people who were in K's circle of friends and some who were not (devil's triangle). BTW, I'm not asserting that it is impossible that reasonable people might listen to his testimony and think he was lying. Calling something "proof" is a very different thing.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    I'm not the person you're replying to but I find it terribly sad to see how much you folks (Americans) lowered the bar to accepting someone into the supreme court. Partisanship is ok. Off-the-handle emotional responses are ok. Continuous strings of allegations "no big deal cause we don't have a cryptographically-signed videotape of it". That 2400 law professors [0], groups like Human Rights Watch [1], the National Council of Churches [2], or even (republican) Justice Stevens himself[3] vehemently oppose his nominations, that raises no alarm bells. I don't get it. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone shrugging this stuff off had even heard of Kavanaugh before, and yet HE is the one who must be appointed to this lifetime position of Supreme Court Judge. HE is the one who meets the standards to reside over the country's most important cases. What is it about this guy you like so much? Could it be that your party is telling you "it's all a democrat ploy" and you're just... following orders? I don't even know why republican voters care this much. There's far more capable and better-suited republican candidates available if Kavanaugh is rejected. Or do you think this sorry excuse of a judge is what "best of the best" looks like? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavan... [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/05/human-rights-watch-opposes-nomination-brett-kavanaugh-us-supreme-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/05/human-rights-watch-oppos... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/04/national-council-churches-makes-rare-statement-oppose-kavanaugh/?utm_term=.87d9e8f89eee https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/04/national-... [3] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-kavanaugh/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-ju...
    - HBlix 8y ago
      It comes down to this: they believe that he’ll swing the court in favor of their chosen policies, be it restricting abortion or whatever else. If Bill Cosby or Ted Bundy were in a position to do that, they’d defend them too. It’s not about good faith arguments, it’s 100% about the end result, and the ends justifying the means.
      - scrollaway 8y ago