There you go again, flying off to the clouds.

It's quite interesting to see how people react to having a well rehearsed story being questioned. A good, experienced investigator can get a lot more out of someone than a politician grandstanding for the cameras.

That's not impossible. I guess.

You mean could get more 'non-evidence' out of her?

It demonstrates quite nicely how you and your cheerleader are unable to actually respond to what has been posted.

It's fitness and propriety to hold the post. That doesn't just stop at criminal accusations. Nor am I saying that necessarily forfeits the Kav as a fit candidate for the job. It's merely an observation for those that are wetting their knickers of criminal level proof. It is not necessary.

It's part and parcel of a flawed system, IMO. Having a politicised judiciary is very risky from the POV that the judiciary should never be beholding to the lawmakers (who are beholding to lobby groups and vested interests). Lawmakers should not be interpreting the law and the judiciary should not be interpreting the political winds (societies, yes).

That's almost on the right track. She may trip herself up, and actually exonerate Kavanaugh much more likely than she would provide the killer detail that leads to him being charged and convicted.

It's why going back to the 60 vote majority for SCOTUS confirmations might actually be a good thing. Instead of decisions being made strictly along party lines, that allows them to go completely off the rails (yes, I know 2 senators crossed the floor), they'd have to be a lot more bi-partisan, both the nominations and the proceedings.
It'd take the toxic binary politics down a notch, you'd hope.

I think the attempt to make this not requiring of criminal proof was the other two accusations, to look like a pattern. But they so clearly didn't hold water that the opposite occured: the initial more plausible claim now looks to many like part of a pattern by the Democrats.

Nonetheless, as a standard rule for a society you can't just willy nilly accuse someone of stealing the money out of the social committee jar and cost them a job. That would not be good.

To be honest, I'm a little reluctant to call people idiots here, not least because I don't regard myself as particularly intelligent, but that conclusion is pretty well inescapable.

I suppose if you continue to present President Trump as some kind 4D chess playing mastermind in the face of mounting evidence that he is a celebrity crook with a mind too weak to comprehend a lot of what is going on around him, then I suppose it's inevitable that your intellectual credibility is going to take a hit.

No, but the inconsistencies that ZT claims are in her testimony could be examined.

And the same for Kavanaugh.

One can easily see why this wasn't allowed to happen.

I agree on the bolded. Yet politics ARE the management of a society/group of societies - a rule set that is very dynamic and WILL change.
Judiciary must be on their toes and keep that in account. As lawmakers must be aware of legal constraints on their newest fandangos.

Was this copied and pasted from a PR consultant's pitch to the Catholic Church?

They are largely inconsistencies between her testimony and previous claims she has made, between different claims she has made outside her testimony, or between her testimony and other evidence that she has refused to provide (e.g. the original therapist notes).

Really you should have a basic understanding of the situation before you go wailing in.

Very odd response, but entirely expected.

Seriously? you think that the notes taken by a therapist on the ordeal of a sexual violence survivor should be opened up for the gratification of the public? Personally, I can see every reason why she wouldn't want that, even if you can't.

Are the anti-Trumpers on here trying to suggest that the FBI is partisan, less than totally independent, in this Kavanaugh matter ?

Burying the lead just a tad.

Headline:
FBI's Wray confirms White House limited Kavanaugh probe

Yes. Yes I do think they should be opened up to the general public, as I clearly stated above.

But failing that ideal situation perhaps they could be turned over for private examination by the body that is investigating the allegations. This seems a sensible compromise from my original and quite clear proposal to publicise the records because the allegator has cited them as corroborating evidence.

Alternatively we could go full #metoo and a) believe the initial allegation because she made it and she's a woman, and b) believe her summary of the independent associated evidence because she's a woman.

The complainant has opened up on lots of personal stuff, to garner sympathy I guess. And she is an expert on railroading systems, has already written on it. Do not know what her "medical" notes might suggest, I would not trust them ...
However, her general testimony is also sadly lacking in detail, accuracy and conviction. Cannot see what she can add if not solid evidence (except her "word", which I find very insufficient) .

#

Of all the hot takes floating around about Kav, this is one of the most excruciatingly stupid.

It's clearly not a f*ckin job interview. It's the excercise of of one of the most important political rights that comes with winning a general election. Actually, its probably the most important political consequence of a US election. Millions of people held their noses and voted for Trump purely so the GOP could make this appointment. Equally, millions of people have completely lost their shit about the fact the GOP will make this appointment.

Which then behoves a full investigation is carried out by professional investigators. One way or another the bottom of it must be got to and the appropriate response or actions taken. Either way, the right outcome will occur most times. The way this has been conducted does nothing to either exonerate the Kav and punish a false accuser, or alternatively prevent an unfit person from being appointed to an extremely powerful and important office, give justice to a victim and relieve the American people of a despicable fraud.

What has transpired is akin to an unruly circus (with the bearded lady, dwarf tossing, monkeys, an elephant and clowns all on display, sans the decorous ringmaster).

You're just trolling now. For weeks the narrative was "Ford is a victim who shouldn't be interogated by old white men". Now it's, "Why, Oh Why, is the GOP preventing the FBI from waterboarding her. All we want is the truth".

And we get called hysterical

I understand that it's a political right, although it doesn't automatically come with winning an election of course

However, once the nomination has been made, the senate process looks into the fitness of the nominee for the position, which is effectively a glorified job interview.

A political right to choose the highest judicial officers i the land?

What an indescribably f**ked up system. Give us strength from this stupidity.

No one should be at all concerned by the appointment of a judge. They should only need to be concerned that the system is uncorrectable and free from political interference and the office free of politicisation.

No it f*ckin isn't.

It's the point at which political control of the Executive and the Legislature has to align. It does now. It likely will not in a few months. Derailment of Kav is intended to fundamentally restrict the GOP by moving the appointment process into a different political enviroment.

The question facing the senate is: against what standard of proof should that be allowed to happen?

Well, take it up with the "Living Constitution" mob. I for one welcome you to the dark side of judicial restraint.

Yo! Anti-Trumpers! Check this out it goes a little something like this:

Trump takes the credit when the Stock Market goes up, blames the FED when it goes down . All the while conveniently forgetting his ego driven trade wars are the reason for the voliatility

This is such an important point. This means so much to the Dems as they 'activated' the court. Having done so, and profited it from it for decades, they are about to lose it, and this is sending them mental.

Take credit for everything good, even when it defies logic. Deny, deny, deny and accept no responsibility for anything bad. It's a simple but depressingly effective playbook.

It is a major weapon they lose. It was used to neutralise bi-partisan legislative authority, pass by majorities and neuter republican values.

Trump is slowly but surely making history, MAGA.

Elections have consequences, I’m sure someone said that earlier.

If it makes you feel better, Kav was an infinitely more bi-cameral decison than Obamacare.

He paid for that remark it seems.

I get Ted’s view, for Kiwis judges have historically had a very limited and disciplined role (highlighted and questioned by CJ Elias recently). Add to that the different expectations about how lawyers are expected to emote in advocacy and elected judiciary at lower levels and the system is very different here.

If that was a criminal investigation, which it is not, firstly the investigators are hardly likely to make that sort of information public, and secondly, in a civilised country the details of the files are likely to be suppressed if the case proceeds to a trial. None of that prevents the investigators doing their job. Why on earth is it you think that untrained politicians should investigate things that require specialised knowledge and most of all, tact and circumspection?

Not for a judge appointed for life, nor necessarily the appointees.

It did for Kennedy, he felt able to retire.

Trivia point, Kennedy and Gorsuch are the first time that a former clerk has joined his or her Justice on the court. Kavanaugh is another former clerk of Kennedy.