What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brenthoven said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think for a lot of people it's the things we know or suspect he has lied about that has people questioning others.
Lying about boofing or devil's triangle is small and fairly easy to verify...why lie about it?
Drinking to blacking out? Can be verified by your friends...again why lie about it?
That's the thing...if you are willing to lie about small things and be so adamant about it...it isn't a stretch to buy that you are lying about the much bigger issue.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

First Time said:
I think for a lot of people it's the things we know or suspect he has lied about that has people questioning others.
Lying about boofing or devil's triangle is small and fairly easy to verify...why lie about it?
Drinking to blacking out? Can be verified by your friends...again why lie about it?
That's the thing...if you are willing to lie about small things and be so adamant about it...it isn't a stretch to buy that you are lying about the much bigger issue.
Click to expand...

On the flipside, white lies about the small things that don't really harm anyone but oneself is one thing. Lying about a big thing that does harm others is another.

I know this is a few posts back, so in case anyone missed it...I am not saying Kav DIDN'T do it, but as of this moment, I cannot say he DID do it, either.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

The Sicatoka said:
If he's that kind of drinker wouldn't that have been a red flag in the six prior FBI background checks?
Click to expand...

You would be amazed at how long HFAs can get away with heavy drinking. No DUIs, no "drunk and disorderlies", no bar fights.
 
Brenthoven said:
On the flipside, white lies about the small things that don't really harm anyone but oneself is one thing. Lying about a big thing that does harm others is another.

I know this is a few posts back, so in case anyone missed it...I am not saying Kav DIDN'T do it, but as of this moment, I cannot say he DID do it, either.
Click to expand...
I don't know if anyone can say for sure he did it...but his answers reasonably push it in that direction. And considering this isn't a trial...i think that's enough.
His behavior (especially the way he attacked senators...Klobuchar big time...) should be disqualifying.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Wisko McBadgerton said:
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!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you're a 'Sconnie, so you get a pass. :D
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

First Time said:
I don't know if anyone can say for sure he did it...but his answers reasonably push it in that direction. And considering this isn't a trial...i think that's enough.
His behavior (especially the way he attacked senators...Klobuchar big time...) should be disqualifying.
Click to expand...

Again, DQ from his nomination is one thing. Him being a sex offender is another. I think he should be DQed, but I cannot say if he's a sex offender at this time.
 
Brenthoven said:
Again, DQ from his nomination is one thing. Him being a sex offender is another. I think he should be DQed, but I cannot say if he's a sex offender at this time.
Click to expand...

Fine. My issue is the court...whether he is an offender isn't part of that for me...even though it seems he could be an offender and that won't matter for the court either.
 
Brenthoven said:
Again, DQ from his nomination is one thing. Him being a sex offender is another. I think he should be DQed, but I cannot say if he's a sex offender at this time.
Click to expand...

No one is asking to lock him up or add him to a sex offender registry. We just don’t think he deserves to be on the Supreme Court for life.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Wisko McBadgerton said:
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.
Click to expand...

You remember everything about every time you went out drinking?
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I looked up what the classmate's statement was to be sure. He talks about K getting in a fight which landed one of their friends in jail and as he says that he didn't purposely socialize with K after, I guess I'd take that as the thing that caused them to no longer be friendly. But here's the important part:

I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth
Click to expand...

What would be helpful is if he states some specific instance in which K blacks out. "It took three of us to get K into his bed because he was so drunk." Simple, easy, everybody gets it.

But he doesn't, he leaves it in the odd phrasing of "denying the possibility that he ever blacked out". Is he saying definitively K has blacked out? He saw it. At Squiggy's Bar. Definitely happened! Or is he saying that it's "possible" K has blacked out because he drank heavily, and because it's possible, K shouldn't have denied it. Seems the latter to me, and seems like a lawyer advised on the wording so he didn't get sued. But I'm no expert on these things.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

BassAle said:
No one is asking to lock him up or add him to a sex offender registry. We just don’t think he deserves to be on the Supreme Court for life.
Click to expand...

Some are, sorta. They believe he is a sex offender.

The latter part of your post, I agree with.
 
Brenthoven said:
Some are, sorta. They believe he is a sex offender.

The latter part of your post, I agree with.
Click to expand...

If he sexually assaulted women...he is one.
He won't end up on the registry though...of that I'm sure.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Brenthoven said:
Some are, sorta. They believe he is a sex offender.

The latter part of your post, I agree with.
Click to expand...

If you think he should be voted down, then why are you concerned whether he committed the act, Brent?
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

burd said:
If you think he should be voted down, then why are you concerned whether he committed the act, Brent?
Click to expand...

Because that's a big friggin' deal, if he did or did not commit the act. The vast majority of us are not qualified to be SCOTUS. But, the vast majority of us are not sex offenders, either.

There's some old saying, to the effect of: "I may be a liar, but I'm not a cheat." Well, he may be an unqualified ahole, but he's not a sex offender (potentially).
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Brenthoven said:
Because that's a big friggin' deal, if he did or did not commit the act. The vast majority of us are not qualified to be SCOTUS. But, the vast majority of us are not sex offenders, either.

There's some old saying, to the effect of: "I may be a liar, but I'm not a cheat." Well, he may be an unqualified ahole, but he's not a sex offender (potentially).
Click to expand...

But I still have to ask: why does it matter to you? He cannot be convicted by this process. It's just about whether he is appointed or not. Do you think he should be charged so those issues can be put before a jury? Or do you just feel the need to know enough to pass judgment one way or another to ease your own mind?

If I sound sarcastic, I'm not trying to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top