SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

[jerphisch]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I've only been through security clearances.

Yes, you've demonstrated your thorough knowledge of clearances in the past.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

People don't recall what happened while they were blacked out, but they definitely recall having blacked out. I had one evening as a college student when I woke up not knowing how or when I got home. I had driven, which scares me still, and apparently I was functioning pretty well. I don't remember what happened late that night, but I most definitely know I was blackout level drunk. Strunk.

That was a rare experience for me, which is even more reason to remember it.

Ok that makes sense. But for myself, I drank A LOT as a young man. My 18th birthday, my older brother tried to murder me through alcohol poisoning, as was the custom. I remember even today, quite clearly, falling down and laying in the lawn on the way to my house, and thinking I could just stay there, but I probably really should get up and go in the house to avoid the mocking and harrassment I was sure to suffer the next day should I stay there. So I got up and went in. I have just never had that experience that I didn't remember what happened. Maybe it's one of those things that if you have had it, you have a hard time believing someone else hasn't and vice versa. I don't know. Maybe I'll drink 40 beers Friday and see what happens, just to be sure!

 

[burd]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Now, here's a question: do they remember blacking out only because they don't remember what happened the night before? Or do they just realize, "Oh, hey, I must have blacked out, because I don't remember a thing?" (note: this is more philosophical of a take than anything)

If they lived and drank alone on a desert island, they may not know they were that drunk.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I have a terrible memory overall. I remember random things, as most people do, I think. I might have forgotten an event, then someone says a key thing, and it's "Oh yeah! I remember that!" There was only one time I truly blacked out, gee it was in college (imagine that!). Thankfully, I had friends that made sure I was safe. Honestly, that scared the sh* outta me.

Edit: burd: good point. No frame of reference.

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

So are we now to believe that his classmates at Yale are part of the left wing conspiracy?

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

So are we now to believe that his classmates at Yale are part of the left wing conspiracy?

That conspiracy bullsh*....ugh.

 

[unofan]

The one thing that's bugging me...the angle that he's a heavy drinker obviously means he committed the assault because he was blackout drunk/etc. I have known a couple alcoholics, and they never assaulted women. They just got really drunk. Just because one thing is true, doesn't mean the other is true. The alcohol might have accelerated the decision to assault Ford, but that wouldn't be the booze's fault. That would be on him and his attitude/thinking/etc in the first place.

That being said, if he has/had that kind of problem, I'd look at that nomination again, but that would be a separate issue.

It's not that drinking = sexual assault, it's that lying about drinking = lying about sexual assault. Not to mention lying under oath, regardless of subject matter, is itself a crime.

It's the cover up that gets you every time.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

It's not that drinking = sexual assault, it's that lying about drinking = lying about sexual assault. Not to mention lying under oath, regardless of subject matter, is itself a crime.

It's the cover up that gets you every time.

Not necessarily. One could be a drunk, an a*hole, a racist, etc, but there may be a line that that person DOESN'T cross, you know? Look at some lifers in prison. They've murdered, they've raped, they've robbed, but put a pedophile in their company? That pedo is gonna be whupped. Doesn't mean the lifer is a good person, it just means that that is a line that they won't cross.

 

[unofan]

Of course that question... have you ever blacked out? It's really asking, do you ever remember what you don't remember? Kind of hard to nail somebody to the wall on.

I did once. Scared the shiat out of me. Never let it happen again. Didn't pass out, crawled into bed like any other night. Just couldn't remember a freaking thing after a certain point in the night.

You know it when you've done it, and other people know it when it happens to a friend.

 

[burd]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I did once. Scared the shiat out of me. Never let it happen again. Didn't pass out, crawled into bed like any other night. Just couldn't remember a freaking thing after a certain point in the night.

You know it when you've done it, and other people know it when it happens to a friend.

Exactly.

 

[unofan]

Not necessarily. One could be a drunk, an a*hole, a racist, etc, but there may be a line that that person DOESN'T cross, you know? Look at some lifers in prison. They've murdered, they've raped, they've robbed, but put a pedophile in their company? That pedo is gonna be whupped. Doesn't mean the lifer is a good person, it just means that that is a line that they won't cross.

Because liars about small things are truthful about the big things? That's not how that works, generally speaking.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

So are we now to believe that his classmates at Yale are part of the left wing conspiracy?

Obviously...I mean, his name IS Chad.....

I bet his incel fans love that.

 

[rufus]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

And the reason he's lying about not being a big drinker, is that, the bigger, sloppier drunk he is, the more probable that he could have assaulted someone and have no memory of it the next day.

His whole defense is, I never assaulted anyone, and my memory is perfectly clear about everything in my past.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I did once. Scared the shiat out of me. Never let it happen again. Didn't pass out, crawled into bed like any other night. Just couldn't remember a freaking thing after a certain point in the night.

You know it when you've done it, and other people know it when it happens to a friend.

So in your whole life it's happened once. Yet you don't really believe someone like me when I say it's happened to me one time less than that?

Do you know when it's happening or has happened to a friend when you yourself are very intoxicated? I believe that is what K's classmate says, that he drank heavily with K and got smashed. Sure, perhaps if you have to literally carry them home with their eyes rolled back in their head and tongue lolling out, I get you might accurately make that assessment of someone else. Nobody has said that kind of thing about K to my knowledge. I don't believe stumbling or even slurring some words means that person automatically won't remember what happened. No doubt I've been in that condition on many an occasion as a youngster, but I'm not lying when I say I've never had the experience of not remembering. I tended bar to get through college and have seen thousands of drunks. Some, astonishingly, remember everything quite clearly the next day, some just don't. I disagree with your premise that someone else can make that definitive assessment of someone else's experience so easily.

 

[burd]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

If he did what she said he did, he's done, I think everyone except Mitch will agree.

If he lied about his drinking habits, he's done because he cannot be trusted. And for the additional reason that we can probably safely conclude he committed the act and lied about that too.

Personally, the unhinged guy I saw Thursday should not be sitting on the SC in any event. I can see why his classmates are coming out with statements that contradict his testimony.

 

[unofan]

So in your whole life it's happened once. Yet you don't really believe someone like me when I say it's happened to me one time less than that?

Do you know when it's happening or has happened to a friend when you yourself are very intoxicated? I believe that is what K's classmate says, that he drank heavily with K and got smashed. Sure, perhaps if you have to literally carry them home with their eyes rolled back in their head and tongue lolling out, I get you might accurately make that assessment of someone else. Nobody has said that kind of thing about K to my knowledge. I don't believe stumbling or even slurring some words means that person automatically won't remember what happened. No doubt I've been in that condition on many an occasion as a youngster, but I'm not lying when I say I've never had the experience of not remembering. I tended bar to get through college and have seen thousands of drunks. Some, astonishingly, remember everything quite clearly the next day, some just don't. I disagree with your premise that someone else can make that definitive assessment of someone else's experience so easily.

Blacking out != passing out. There are telltale signs when someone crosses the threshold even when they're not aware of it themselves at the time. I can tell you several college friends who blacked out a lot.

Kavanaugh's classmates have stated he lied when he said he never blacked out. I believe them.

And I never said you've blacked out. I'm saying Kavanaugh did based on the evidence presented.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

If he did what she said he did, he's done, I think everyone except Mitch will agree.

If he lied about his drinking habits, he's done because he cannot be trusted. And for the additional reason that we can probably safely conclude he committed the act and lied about that too.

Personally, the unhinged guy I saw Thursday should not be sitting on the SC in any event. I can see why his classmates are coming out with statements that contradict his testimony.

This is the part that bugs me. Just because he may have lied about one thing, doesn't make it true that he is lying about the other.

 

[unofan]

This is the part that bugs me. Just because he may have lied about one thing, doesn't make it true that he is lying about the other.

But it makes it a helluva lot more likely he is.

Do you have to independently assess everything trump says, or do you just assume everything he says is a lie at this point like his track record shows?

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

This is the part that bugs me. Just because he may have lied about one thing, doesn't make it true that he is lying about the other.

Lying about anything under oath disqualifies you from this position. Period.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Lying about anything under oath disqualifies you from this position. Period.

I covered that part earlier. I am concentrating on only the assault allegation. Whether he's qualified to serve as SCOTUS is another matter (and I don't believe he is).