Andrew Sullivan Makes Sense
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
I agree with most of what he writes here but I didn't find Ford to be all that credible. Any trained interviewer would have all kinds of red flags with her behavior and testimony.
A professional cross examination would of shredded her. She remembers who was there and specific details about the house but can't tell you where it is located or what day it happened on. Doesn't know how she got there or how she got home.
Left without warning her best friend or even letting her know she was upset. Doesn't tell anyone about this for 20 years and is so traumatized it has severely affected her life yet she seemed to get through two more years of high school and have a lot of academic success.
Why lie about fear of flying when she flies long distances regularly, was her lawyers hiding information from her?
I think this woman has convinced herself Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her because she wants to believe it, after all he was from her area she knew who he was but he was in the Bush administration so that has to make him evil in her radical liberal mind.
There has been absolutely zero evidence outside of her messed up memory. If we're going to ruin people over an "unstable" (her students word) persons accusations then both parties are going to be searching for crazies to bring each other down. The Dems have already gone down this path.
A professional cross examination would of shredded her. She remembers who was there and specific details about the house but can't tell you where it is located or what day it happened on. Doesn't know how she got there or how she got home.
Left without warning her best friend or even letting her know she was upset. Doesn't tell anyone about this for 20 years and is so traumatized it has severely affected her life yet she seemed to get through two more years of high school and have a lot of academic success.
Why lie about fear of flying when she flies long distances regularly, was her lawyers hiding information from her?
I think this woman has convinced herself Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her because she wants to believe it, after all he was from her area she knew who he was but he was in the Bush administration so that has to make him evil in her radical liberal mind.
There has been absolutely zero evidence outside of her messed up memory. If we're going to ruin people over an "unstable" (her students word) persons accusations then both parties are going to be searching for crazies to bring each other down. The Dems have already gone down this path.
You make a very convincing argument. On the other hand it seems Kavanaugh has not been the choir boy he has tried so hard to convince us he is. I read an article in the Intercept website in which it details the many lies (their words) he has made, in particulate his excessive drinking, and reports by several associates who claim he was a belligerent drunk. None of that makes him a sexual assaulter of course, but it should give a person with an open mind reason for concern.
My take is in full agreement with Sullivan’s. The reason to oppose his confirmation has nothing to do with his actions as s teenager, and everything to do with his history of siding with the government in its full frontal assault on the 4th Amendment, his history of granting the presidency authority not conferred on it by the Constitution.
I did read another article (I don’t remember where) which said during his confirmation hearing he addressed this issue by saying he was ruling in accordance with previous Supreme Court rulings, and with more recent SC rulings he has changed his mind. That is a welcome admission on his part, but it would be a gamble to confirm him considering his past rulings and his fabrications about his wild behavior as a high schooler/college student.
It’s a fascinating situation. The Democrats do not deserve a victory in this case. Their behavior is beyond repugnant, and could ultimately send this country into a civil war.
As Sullivan says everybody is a loser.
Last edited:
While there is no doubt numerous reasons to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination, I think all of this does reveal serious questions about his fitness to sit on the Supreme Court.
First, even if one was to accept the premise that what he did as a teenager shouldn't matter, how he has responded to what he did as a teenager does. He clearly has not been as forthcoming as he could have been. He wanted to project a choir boy image instead of simply projecting the truth. And this is a trend with him btw. He would rather do and say what one expects him to do and say...or what one tells him to say and do...instead of doing and saying what is true. This is very troublesome for someone who desires to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
Secondly, I believe that Kavanaugh has shown that he is motivated by political inclinations, which is again troublesome. His blaming all of this on political revenge and pointing to the Clintons in my opinion showed that at heart, Kavanaugh is a political operative. His background points to this as well. If he sits on the Court, will he be able to lay aside these inclinations? Will what he has now gone through lead him to want to "get even" and influence his rulings? These are serious questions that his own testimony and background raises.
And lastly, if he did do what these women are claiming, that matters. And it matters even more that he couldn't admit it to himself or to a country he wishes now to serve sitting on the Supreme Court.
It is an interesting situation. He could have come out and said, "Yes, I drank a lot in HS and college. But, that does not disqualify me from the SC. I don't drink much anymore, and I have been a respected judge for many years. And, most importantly, what Dr Ford is claiming, never happened." Instead, he went with the choirboy strategy.
Now, I am sure that his handlers discussed his options with him, and decided that the super pissed off, mistreated, angel was the way to go in this situation, but I am not sure it was the best strategy. I guess both options included pros and cons, though.
He did say he drank a lot in hs and college. Did you not watch the hearing yourself or are you just getting your talking points from snl?
I think it is important that we distinguish a vast difference between denying that one was a binge drinker/mean drunk as a teenager, and the contention that therefore one was a sexual assaulter. His only accuser with a shred of believability is Ms. Ford, and she provides absolutely no evidence beyond her accusation. As I said above Headhunter makes a very convincing argument in contradiction of Ms. Ford's testimony. We simply cannot deny confirmation to the man because of an unsubstantiated accusation. If that is all it takes there will never be another judge ever. Jesus Christ himself could be denied confirmation if Satan made an unsubstantiated accusation, no matter how ridiculous it might be. I'm trying to remember several years back when Democrats were arguing the truth of a particular charge was not important; what was important was the seriousness of the allegation. Do you remember that? Evidence matters.. An accusation with lack of evidence does not.
That Kavanaugh has shown himself to be "motivated by political inclinations" goes without saying. It goes without saying because every human being that has ever lived is motivated by political inclinations. A much more accurate way of putting it would be to call it "philosophical inclinations." Do you think Justice Ginsberg rules absent her political inclinations? I doubt there has ever been a judge without political inclinations. To demand that Kavanaugh set aside his philosophical principles is nonsense.
I will say it for the third time: Kavanaugh should be denied confirmation because of his historical contempt for the 4th Amendment. His rulings are right there in plain sight, irrefutable evidence of his unfitness to be on the SC. Why the Democrats decided to go the "circus route" boggles the mind. Unfounded sexual accusations from over three decades ago seem to be designed to split this country even further apart. It's almost as if that's what they want. It is one more step this country is taking toward a civil war and the loss of liberty that will entail.
He deflected routinely...did you not watch the hearing yourself or are you just getting your talking points from Hannity?
Watched the whole thing, and stand by what I posted.
That SNL skit was hilarious though.
So you didn’t see the part where he said he drank and sometimes had too many? Isnt that what you wanted him to say in your fantasy quote?
Come on. You know why the Democrats went the way they did.
First off, it is revenge for M Garland. Secondly, with the current balance of the Senate, pointing out what you pointed out would not sway any of the GOP away from approving him. They are so worried that the Senate might flip during the midterms that they did not want to risk losing their chance to push through a conservative. They were clearly in a rush to make it happen before something changes and they miss their chance. They are still in a rush (which is understandable).
Where I have a problem with this argument is this: you seem to be saying he should be denied confirmation because he did not handle his defense the way you think he should have handled it. His defense against the accusation of sexual assault was rock solid. It had next to nothing to do with his teenage drinking.
The thing I don't understand with your opposition to Kavanaugh is why you want to focus on such an inconsequential matter. Why don't you and 2 cents and the others just say you are against him because you fear he will flip the court to an anti-abortion stance? We all know that is giant gorilla in the room. Why won't you acknowledge the gorilla? Why the circus sideshow? Why not say the truth and slug it out on that basis?
If he had a record of being an aggressive drunk, then yes, it has a lot to do with his teenage drinking. In your defense, you’re not the first poster to bring up this dumbass narrative.
I oppose Kavanaugh primarily on the basis of his firm, staunch support of Trump in lieu of investigations.
You are now returning to a discussion about whether or not the accusations are true or not. I was addressing in my post what all of this reveals apart from whether the accusations are true or not. Only my last point related to the the truth of the accusations.
As you even noted, the man tried to portray himself as something he wasn't. Rather the accusations are true or not, the fact that he has shown a willingness to not be as forthcoming as he should be matters. Ask any lawyer who has had to seek a state bar character and fitness approval about the importance of being forthcoming. And this man wants to sit on the Supreme Court!
I firmly disagree. If Justice Ginsberg had made political comments like Kavanaugh made during her nomination process, Republicans would have had a fit. Kavanaugh invoked the Clintons as cover man. Come on!
There is a difference between having a certain judicial philosophy that guides a judge and being a judge with a political agenda. Kavanaugh looked and acted like a political operative on Thursday. And that is troublesome.
It amazes me how you blame the Democrats for this because apparently, you have just accepted it is some grand conspiracy. Yet you have no evidence for that. What if isn't some grand left-wing conspiracy? Have you stopped to think about that?
With that said, you are right in the sense that there are numerous reasons to oppose this nomination. You and I agree he shouldn't be confirmed.
Yes, I know why the Democrats went the way they did. I'm just saying they didn't need to destroy the man's reputation as a person of high character. They could have argued in opposition to his judicial history, and they would have had a much stronger case. And it would not have driven this country into a wider split. They might have convinced the libertarian wing of the Republican Party to go with them. Flake almost certainly would joined with them without making himself look like such a fool. They only needed one or two Republican defections. Instead they appear to have drawn the Reubs closer together than ever. As it stands today Kavanaugh will still be confirmed, there will be a 5/4 SCD split in spite of the Democrat shenanigans. All that has been accomplished has been even greater hatred between the two sides.
As for revenge for Garland, that is petty politics at its worst. At no time did the Republicans attempt to destroy Garland's name. They simply sat on his appointment as they had the legal and political power to do. We both know the Democrats would have done exactly the same thing had they been in that situation. What the Democrats have done with Kavanaugh is unconscionably cruel.
Because I don't believe he will! I don't believe Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Nor do I oppose him simply because of abortion.
i.e., the worry that he is a political operative.
That has been the concern of many Democrats and his testimony on Thursday only strengthened that concern.
Again, where is your proof that this is all a left-wing conspiracy? What Democrats do you believe set this all up? Did they ask these women to lie? If so, who asked them to lie?
I don't think it is a conspiracy. I think that Ford fell into their lap and they chose to use her story to get what they want because they had no other chance to get what they want.
Calling the Democrat strategy a "grand conspiracy" are words coming from your mouth, not mine. I call it a strategy not a conspiracy. Shumer said from the very beginning the Democrats would oppose Kavanaugh to the bitter end, no matter what it takes. They could have shown principled opposition, they could have shown the public Kavanaugh's judicial history. Hell they've got virtually the entire media on their side, they could have embarked on a never ending portrayal of Kavanaugh as a danger to our way of life. Instead they ignored moral opposition and went for the jugular on man's character and good name. What they have done to him is despicable.
I agree it fell in their lap. But what were they suppose to do? Ignore it?
Look at how long Feinstein set on it and the heat she has taken for sitting on it.
Sure he did, so?
Do you believe Democrats orchestrated all of this from the beginning?
When these women came forward with their accusations, should they have ignored them? Is that what you are claiming?
And if the women are telling the truth, is it still despicable?
Actually, I agree with you about the 4th amendment. TBH, I don't care all that much about what happens with abortion. If the GOP wants to overturn it, fine. Let them overturn it and see what that leads to. I was more concerned about Kav protecting the POTUS and anyone that POTUS pardons.
After watching his testimony, I am more hopeful that he doesn't get confirmed. I don't think he was honest in his testimony, and that should disqualify him. I, also, don't want a SCOTUS who would claim that this was a conspiracy perpetrated by the Clintons. That is some tin foil hat stuff right there.
The heat is well deserved! She should have taken it to Grassley. They would have immediately taken it to the FBI and called for a fair investigation. Instead she played politics and has driven a stake between the two sides that may never be removed. We both know none of that mattered. The idea for the Democrats is to do whatever it takes to delay the confirmation, while the Republicans are doing their best to rush to judgement.. As Sullivan said, the whole country is the loser.
Should she not take heat for sitting on it? What was she going to do with it if it didn't look like Kavanaugh had the support to get confirmed?
We all know why she sat on it and made sure it got released the way it did, you included. Trying to feign ignorance isn't going to work.
Have you ever thought that maybe she set on it because she didn't want this nomination to go in that direction...or she wasn't sure how trustworthy the accusation was, etc.? Or do you just assume the worst since Fienstien is a Democrat?
It appears to me that Democrats were damned if they did and damned if they didn't here with individuals like yourself. You fault Feinstein for sitting on it and assign a sinister reason for doing so. Then, you fault Democrats for allowing it to go public and assign a sinster reason.
I don't think that is totally fair.
I believe Ford when she claims that she wanted to remain anonymous (I believe her because it is completely logical based on how her life changed when her identity was revealed).
I believe Ford when she says that she would not have made her story public had Trump not settled on Kav for his nominee. To me, it makes sense that she would not want to go public, and get into a he said/she said situation, but could not continue to stay quiet when it became very likely that he would rise to the position of SCOTUS.
I assume that there was some wrestling between Feinstein and Ford as to whether or not to go public.
Now, I admit that Feinstein probably played some games and timed everything to get a particular set of circumstances. But, I don't think it is clear that she sat on it for months as part of her strategy. It may have happened, but I don't think it is a given. It may be that she only sat on it for a number of days or weeks once Ford agreed to go public with her identity.
I believe there was/is a grand strategy being played by the Democrats. Do whatever it takes to delay the confirmation past the upcoming elections. They are very hopeful to gain control of the Senate and put a stop to any Trump appointments, unless those appointments assure them abortion will be protected. (For the record I believe abortion should be legal. I am not condemning the Democrats for their stance on abortion, although it baffles me why they chose to make it their line in the sand. But I cannot tolerate their behavior in this matter.)
As I said earlier the only accusation that has a shred of credibility is Ford's. And without evidence it should not be a reason to deny the confirmation. The gang rape charge is preposterous, I don't think even you believe Kavanaugh orchestrated and participated in gang rapes. The story that he pushed a woman against a wall in a sexual manner (what does that even mean?) has been discredited by the woman he was dating at the time who said he always acted in a gentlemanly manner. I attack on the boat in New Hampshire was withdrawn by the man who said he witnessed it.
I have very little doubt that new accusations will appear as the confirmation vote nears. I'm sure Democrat operatives are scouring the country looking for any mud to sling. This is quite separate from the way the Republicans handled the Garland appointment.
None of this needed to happen. The Democrats are so anxious to gain power they are obviously willing to do anything, go to any extreme to acquire it. It is very discouraging to me. What is becoming of our country?
None of us know what was going on with Feinstein. There is numerous reasons for how she acted with this.
But some on the right have to assume she was in the wrong, why assuming the complete opposite as it relates to Kavanaugh. See Ponca's posts.
Last edited:
And your evidence and proof for this assumption?
I think it is rather clear you are quick to not want to believe the accusations against Kavanaugh citing a lack of evidence, yet, you believe the Democrats are behind this without citing any evidence.
There you go again lol.
Why not?
Don't disagree.
6 weeks or so is how long she sat on it. Am I supposed to believe that it's coincidental that it was leaked right afyer the hearings ended and it appeared Kavanaugh had the support to be confirmed? I don't because the stench of political bullshit is too strong to think it's anything other than political bullshit.
Except it was clear she wanted to go public. She hired attorneys (recommended by some Democrats?) and took a polygraph well before it was "leaked." If what you say was accurate, it would have been handled privately by Feinstein's office right after the letter was received.
That is the whole point. Ford didn't want her name out there (for obvious reasons). At the point where it became clear that he was likely to be confirmed, she had to make a decision. I'm sure she was pressured by the Democrats to go public.
I think it is completely realistic for the Democrats to say, "we are going to provide you with attorneys and have you take a polygraph test". "We want to have those things out of the way if you decide to go public, and we need the polygraph test before we are willing to stand behind your story. If it looks like Kav isn't going to be confirmed, then you can stay anonymous and we won't use any of it".
It is not as simple as Feinstein hearing the story and sharing it with everyone immediately. Ford should have some say in if the story gets shared, with whom, and under what circumstances. Her life is about to get turned upside down.
(Now, if you want to bitch about the leaking of her name/story prematurely, I will agree with you that it was a slimy move).
1) I have no evidence/proof. Never said I did. I am giving you my opinion for what is happening, which is what you asked for.
2) It's not that I don't want to believe the accusations. I'm 71 years old and have been around the block several times. When something is obvious one should be able to recognize it. I see three options as regard Ms. Ford and her accusations. A) She's nutty as a fruitcake. B) Something happened to make her nutty. Maybe an assault happened. If Kavanaugh is the culprit, she needs to prove it. C) She has always been the trump card to be pulled by the Democrats if everything else fails I have no idea which of the three is the right one. If I had to guess I'd say B. Which requires proof. What I think the Democrats are behind are the machinations necessary to put this whole fiasco into play. Maybe you are correct that Ford's letter "fell into their lap." You asked what they were supposed to do. I say what they were supposed to do, provided they believed the letter was legitimate, was proceed to the Chairman and together take it to the FBI for investigation. That they sat on it for several weeks and produced it only when all other avenues for preventing the confirmation had failed highly suggests to me that option C was always in play.
3) Yes, there I go again giving my opinion on an opinion message board.
