The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

[HooDat]

Well, if you're blacking out, you're not going to remember it, right?
No one ever told you something you had done the night before that you didn't remember?

gotcha!

but honestly - I never did black out. But then I never really passed out either - although sometimes I wish I had.....

[HooDat]

What do we think really happened? He was stupid drunk, was aggressive, she got away, and he never thought twice about it thereafter, has no memory of it actually happening other than a vague uncertainty through the beer haze. She buried it, thanking god she wasn't raped, and hid from the humiliation and degradation that would have ensued had she complained to her parents and beyond about the star student/athlete getting grabby with her at an unchaperoned party with boys and beer...

there is a very real chance this is the truth. It is also possible that all of it happened with the caveat that although his behavior was completely inappropriate he had no intention of sexually assaulting her - meaning he assaulted her but didn't attempt to rape her. He may have thought it was funny - which is why judge kept lunging onto the bed...

Now we get to the tricky part - given any of those two scenarios,

1) could it be that she has her people mixed up and it wasn't him? - the memory is a weird thing.

2) could it be that he is caught in what he thought was an innocent lie (he didn't think anything of the event because he had no intention of doing anything more than what happened) and then doubled down because he is a G Prep d-bag who thought he could get away with it just like he has everything else....?

as Scott Adams would say: same screen, two movies....

[MDlaxfan76]

Well, if you're blacking out, you're not going to remember it, right?
No one ever told you something you had done the night before that you didn't remember?

gotcha!

but honestly - I never did black out. But then I never really passed out either - although sometimes I wish I had.....

The only time that I recall actually not knowing how I got to my bed was the night of my bachelor party when my butthead friends put in me in a chair throwing out questions and toasts and encouraging me to drink gulps of hard alcohol. Absolutely no recollection after the first 20 mins or so. I was a hurting cowboy for two days after that.

But darn right, there were other times in which I sure as heck wouldn't have been able to swear to every event the night prior, when I know darn well that I was 'stupid drunk', puked, etc. Not dozens and dozens of times as appears to have been Kavanaugh's situation, but enough so that I wouldn't ever swear to perfect recollection of what I did or didn't do.

[MDlaxfan76]

What do we think really happened? He was stupid drunk, was aggressive, she got away, and he never thought twice about it thereafter, has no memory of it actually happening other than a vague uncertainty through the beer haze. She buried it, thanking god she wasn't raped, and hid from the humiliation and degradation that would have ensued had she complained to her parents and beyond about the star student/athlete getting grabby with her at an unchaperoned party with boys and beer...

there is a very real chance this is the truth. It is also possible that all of it happened with the caveat that although his behavior was completely inappropriate he had no intention of sexually assaulting her - meaning he assaulted her but didn't attempt to rape her. He may have thought it was funny - which is why judge kept lunging onto the bed...

Now we get to the tricky part - given any of those two scenarios,

1) could it be that she has her people mixed up and it wasn't him? - the memory is a weird thing.

2) could it be that he is caught in what he thought was an innocent lie (he didn't think anything of the event because he had no intention of doing anything more than what happened) and then doubled down because he is a G Prep d-bag who thought he could get away with it just like he has everything else....?

as Scott Adams would say: same screen, two movies....

#1 just isn't what happens in these cases. There are a small % of false accusations, but extremely unlikely that an honest mistake in identification was made. She knew these boys. She 'went out with' their buddy "Squi". She knew it was Kav and Judge.

#2 is possible, both clauses.

My own hunch is that he didn't intend 'rape' but was stupidly and drunkenly aggressive in what he thought was a 'playful' way. The kind of 'playful' in which buttholes think they are entitled to sex and submission from others and just grab whatever is in reach.

But I doubt that he thought of it as 'sexual assault' at the time, though he sure as heck should have. This attitude, sadly, was not uncommon in that era and in the decade prior, but those who actually acted upon it were in the minority of boys, including at elite all-male schools like Georgetown Prep. And, sadly, we continue to see these episodes of cohorts of young men acting really badly in each decade since. But it shouldn't be thought of as actually representative of the majority of boys, just what happens when a handful of bad actors reinforce one another and the culture goes wrong.

[DMac]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
What else did he lie about?

FFFFF means, find 'em, feel 'em, finger 'em, f**k 'em, forget 'em, to everyone else, but to him it's a stuttering friend's (Squi, I think) way of saying f**k. Right.

Reminds me of the LSMFT on Lucky Strikes (Lucky Strikes Means Fine Tobacco...unless you're 15, then it means let's screw my finger's tired, or loose straps means floppy breasts )).

[MDlaxfan76]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
What else did he lie about?

FFFFF means, find 'em, feel 'em, finger 'em, f**k 'em, forget 'em, to everyone else, but to him it's a stuttering friend's (Squi, I think) way of saying f**k. Right.

Reminds me of the LSMFT on Lucky Strikes (Lucky Strikes Means Fine Tobacco...unless you're 15, then it means let's screw my finger's tired, or loose straps means floppy breasts )).

let's put it this way...There may well have been a joke about Squi and the F-word stuttering, but they had to know darn well the double meaning of FFFFF when they put it in the yearbook.

[seacoaster]

Can someone who supports the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh give me a serious answer to this question: Why? What is it about him that makes you support his confirmation? Just curious. Serious question.

[HooDat]

Can someone who supports the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh give me a serious answer to this question: Why? What is it about him that makes you support his confirmation? Just curious. Serious question.

I am not sure I am the right person to answer the question the way you asked it - as I am not sure I really want him on the court, with the further caveat that if he is confirmed, my guess is that he will end up being a pretty good judge based on his work record.

so with that out of the way, here is a reason to support him:

because if any political party is allowed to achieve their political objectives in this way - our democracy is in for a serious hurtin'

and make no mistake, this was done for political reasons. No other justice has ever faced this level of scrutiny. and I doubt many of the ones currently sitting on the SCOTUS could survive this gauntlet. In a debate I would be happy taking either card and defending that side - in the "support Kav case, I think you lean heavily on the argument that even if he is a liar and potentially a d-bag, his sitting on the court will actually do less harm to our country than establishing the precedent that scorched earth smear campaigns of this nature and extent will work.

this whole episode makes me sad.

[DMac]

Not surprisingly, that's a mighty good answer IMO, Hoo. Politics is a very dirty business, wait til they start tapping into people's computers and see what they were doing on there 30 years ago. Ouch.

[seacoaster]

Good, interesting, and cogent answer, Hoo (as DMac says, not a surprise).

I was asking that, if he is confirmed, what is the case-by-case result that you (the supporter) expect? E.g., He will secure open carry for everyone, everywhere, even at schools and in the courthouses and town meetings. He will interpret the scope of constitutional privacy in a manner that makes it possible for the state legislatures to make terminating a pregnancy under virtually all circumstances a crime. He will immunize the President and Presidency from civil court proceedings for the balance of the his or her administration.

See what I am asking? What rulings do you expect?

[youthathletics]

Can someone who supports the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh give me a serious answer to this question: Why? What is it about him that makes you support his confirmation? Just curious. Serious question.

I am not sure I am the right person to answer the question the way you asked it - as I am not sure I really want him on the court, with the further caveat that if he is confirmed, my guess is that he will end up being a pretty good judge based on his work record.

so with that out of the way, here is a reason to support him:

because if any political party is allowed to achieve their political objectives in this way - our democracy is in for a serious hurtin'

and make no mistake, this was done for political reasons. No other justice has ever faced this level of scrutiny. and I doubt many of the ones currently sitting on the SCOTUS could survive this gauntlet. In a debate I would be happy taking either card and defending that side - in the "support Kav case, I think you lean heavily on the argument that even if he is a liar and potentially a d-bag, his sitting on the court will actually do less harm to our country than establishing the precedent that scorched earth smear campaigns of this nature and extent will work.

this whole episode makes me sad.

I agree completely with Hoodat and the part in large font is the icing on the cake.....but it so upsets me to see this happen in the open era of social and news media. The political hit Feinstein had locked and loaded for months is pathetic, and she (and possibly others) had orchestrated all this before almost everyone of us could even find BK in a picture of 2 people. For them, this was a calculated a win-win, if they pinned the accusation on him or he may withdraw or he lose the needed votes form this timed bomb. His so called, presumed lies, about FFFFFF or blacking out are exactly what the Shepard's of the political left want their sheep to buy into. When what really counts as a judge on the SCOTUS is upholding the following, the first words on this page are in bold caps for a reason..

Bottom line, the left played stupid games and I would not be upset if they win a stupid prize. I also would not be upset if he is not chosen. If I had a vote, I would vote yes.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Well, if you're blacking out, you're not going to remember it, right?
No one ever told you something you had done the night before that you didn't remember?

gotcha!

but honestly - I never did black out. But then I never really passed out either - although sometimes I wish I had.....

He said he never passed out but he fell asleep.

[seacoaster]

"because if any political party is allowed to achieve their political objectives in this way - our democracy is in for a serious hurtin'

This suggests a skepticism about Dr. Ford's account. And -- another serious question -- is this really worse than McConnell refusing to even schedule a hearing on a nominee of a sitting President with 300 or so days left in his second term? I thought the Constitution mattered, and "elections have consequences"? You reap what you sow.

Anyway, still asking why -- what vote on what case -- anyone wants Brett Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS for the next couple of generations. Anyone?

[seacoaster]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... e=Homepage

"Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:"

The piece then lists over 650 law professors from law schools across the country.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

You believe the never blacked out stuff? I can't prove it's a lie, but I know it is.
In and of itself it's no big deal, throw in the SC judge part and it is (to me).

you lose me on this one. I drank a LOT in college. I mean a LOT. I never remember blacking out.....

i was going to nominate hoodat for president, until i read this.

[DMac]

If you nominate him, I'll vote for him.
Winston HooDat for Prez!
(gotta check with him to see if he'll take marijuana off Shed 1 if he's elected before I fully commit to that vote though)

[jhu72]

Why lie if you don't have to?? If he hadn't played pretend, "I was a virgin, choir boy, who couldn't over drink", he would not have the problem he has. Ford's story is credible, but hardly conclusive or damning by itself. If he had behaved more like a real judge and less like Orange Duce, he would already be confirmed.

He has lied because he thought people were getting too close to some truth he cannot admit. He was an ugly drunk, there is no longer any doubt -- he lied about this. I suspect he still is which is what he is trying to hide. The reporter John Heilemann knew of him when tending bar in a local DC joint at the end of the Clinton administration (Kavanaugh's mid 30's) and claims he was a mean sloppy drunk then. When did he stop being a mean sloppy drunk??

- He is a liar, both big and small.
- He likely remains a mean sloppy drunk
- He clearly believes himself to be entitled
- His demeanor is hardly "judicial"
- There are serious question's as to his morals, which raise his risk profile as a candidate. Regardless of whether he is confirmed of not, he will be under investigation for years to come, at the very least. Those worrying about how not confirming Kavanaugh would set some bad precedent, seem to give no consideration as to how much worse it will be if confirmed and then find his story is so much worse.

The republicans are just being short sighted. Worrying about teaching the democrats some kind of lesson, not rewarding them for uncovering the issues with Kavanaugh. Apparently warning what comes around goes around, the threat being no one will ever again, even the democrats, be able to confirm a lying, mean drunk of questionable morals with a non-judicial demeanor. Personally that's ok with me, the one thing we need more of on the Supreme Court, are people of that profile.

There are enough candidates that the democrats would hate, that don't carry this baggage.

-------
PS-

"Old Salt" reminds me that Heilemann's claim was in regards to Mark Judge not Bart O. Apologies to Bart O. The question still stands - at what point in Bart's life did he stop being a mean sloppy drunk? There have been other anecdotal claims in roughly the same time frame - Clinton Administration - that have not been confirmed.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"because if any political party is allowed to achieve their political objectives in this way - our democracy is in for a serious hurtin'

This suggests a skepticism about Dr. Ford's account. And -- another serious question -- is this really worse than McConnell refusing to even schedule a hearing on a nominee of a sitting President with 300 or so days left in his second term? I thought the Constitution mattered, and "elections have consequences"? You reap what you sow.

Anyway, still asking why -- what vote on what case -- anyone wants Brett Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS for the next couple of generations. Anyone?

A few posters here want him for no other reason than to stick it to dems. Want him because Trump picked him. I don’t know the guy...but he was so unimpressive.

[dislaxxic]

I think the horse got out of Hoodats barn when Mitch pulled his little stunt with Garland. Not trying to re-litigate that sorry episode, and without being able to go back to LP to research, can Hoo perhaps refresh our memory as to his position then? Can you apply your bolded text to that episode?

..

[Lax Fidelis]

Thanks to both seacoaster and dislaxxic for reminding everyone that Sen. Turkey Wattles turned the SCOTUS nomination process into a totally politically process which may never be restored to something even resembling what it used to be. TW is as much of a pox on America as OD. Two slugs in one rug.