Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[ldrews]

I find it hilarious that his "character witness" from H.S. is named Judge and wrote a book titled "Wasted" with a character Bart O'Kavenaugh in it.

 

Even funnier is the likes of ldrews wondering if any of this matters to his qualifications for the Supreme Court even if true. With an eye to the midterms and a number of GOP Senators feeling the heat I think you can just about stick a fork in this bozo.

 

As I understand it there is not one piece of hard evidence that any of the stuff Professor Ford claims even happened. It is a classic case of "he said, she said." For this you want to totally destroy a man's reputation and career built up over 35 years of apparently impeccable behavior. This is beyond belief!

 

In any case, Kavenaugh is not the same person, mentally or emotionally, as that 17 year old boy. We, the public, desire the installation of a competent, mature, balanced decision maker well versed in the application of Constitutional law. We are not interviewing a 17 year old. What Kavenaugh was or was not at 17 has little if any bearing on his performance as a Supreme Court judge.

 

And another thing: why stop at 17? Why not 16, 15, 14, 13,...? Perhaps your grade school antics with the girl with pigtails should disqualify you in later life from any position of importance.

 

Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

[hrothgar]

As I understand it there is not one piece of hard evidence that any of the stuff Professor Ford claims even happened. It is a classic case of "he said, she said." For this you want to totally destroy a man's reputation and career built up over 35 years of apparently impeccable behavior. This is beyond belief!

 

In any case, Kavenaugh is not the same person, mentally or emotionally, as that 17 year old boy. We, the public, desire the installation of a competent, mature, balanced decision maker well versed in the application of Constitutional law. We are not interviewing a 17 year old. What Kavenaugh was or was not at 17 has little if any bearing on his performance as a Supreme Court judge.

 

And another thing: why stop at 17? Why not 16, 15, 14, 13,...? Perhaps your grade school antics with the girl with pigtails should disqualify you in later life from any position of importance.

 

Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

 

Here we see the conservative ID at work

 

Who the ***** cares if Kavenaugh attempted to rape some girl.

He's OUR RAPIST and we'll excuse anything or reverse any policy that we believe in so long as OUR rapist makes his way to the courts.

[cherdano]

Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life.

Which part was exemplary? Where we went full-blown nuts, including leaking to the press, in Ken Starr's Clinton investigation? Or the part where he suddenly changed minds about law suits against an acting president because now it was his president in power? Or do you mean that he played a high profile role in GWB administration, aka the worst administration in recent memory? Or the part where did not hear or see anything about the Kozinski's awful behaviour - which everybody who came into three zip codes of Yale Law school heard about, except his long-time protege Kavanaugh? Who had an infamous dirty jokes email list that Kavanaugh "didn't remember" whether he was on? Or the part where he repeatedly downplays his involvement with contentious Bush administration nominations --- all very careful to the point that it's not technically perjury, but certainly misleading the judiciary committee?

 

Oh, I guess, you mean the part where he Sean Spicered himself praised your Dear Leader for his utmost respect for the judiciary, and for having consulted "more widely than any president before for any judicial nomination"?

 

That this guy even had a chance of being nominated (sane Republicans would have listened to McConnell and nominated someone else) just goes to show how the affirmative action for Republican Law School graduates evaluates candidates of low moral character. But I guess affirmative action is good when it's for Republicans.

[hrothgar]

Which part was exemplary? Where we went full-blown nuts, including leaking to the press, in Ken Starr's Clinton investigation? Or the part where he suddenly changed minds about law suits against an acting president because now it was his president in power? Or do you mean that he played a high profile role in GWB administration, aka the worst administration in recent memory? Or the part where did not hear or see anything about the Kozinski's awful behaviour - which everybody who came into three zip codes of Yale Law school heard about, except his long-time protege Kavanaugh? Who had an infamous dirty jokes email list that Kavanaugh "didn't remember" whether he was on? Or the part where he repeatedly downplays his involvement with contentious Bush administration nominations --- all very careful to the point that it's not technically perjury, but certainly misleading the judiciary committee?

 

Don't forget the membership in "Tit and Clit" and DKE while at Yale

(Both bastions of Yale rape culture)

[johnu]

I'm waiting to see what undeniable evidence she presents to the committee before rendering judgment.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hrothgar]

Did a bunch of content from the tail end of of this thread get deleted?

 

If so, by who and why?

 

I seem to recall a response by Chas to one of my postings that I very much want to quote in light of the new gang rape accusations...

[y66]

From The Supreme Court Is Coming Apart by David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

The Supreme Court is an unusual institution, because it somehow manages to be both majestic and intimate.

 

The court is housed in a marble temple with soaring columns, and it has made some of the most consequential decisions in American history. But it feels like a simpler institution than either the presidency or Congress. Its arguments are not televised but are open to the public. Spectators are often surprised by the courtroom’s modest size. Outside the court, the nine justices tend to lead more normal day-to-day lives than senators, governors or other grandees.

 

This combination has long allowed the court to embody the American ideal of democratic government — powerful yet humble — and many people have revered it as a result.

 

But today the Supreme Court is in trouble. And the issues are much larger than the mess of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Absent some kind of course correction, the court risks a crisis of legitimacy.

 

There are two fundamental problems. The first is that the court has become an intensely partisan institution that pretends otherwise.

 

The founders envisioned the justices as legal sages, free from the political scrum. They receive lifetime appointments to protect their independence. The justices themselves cherish this image. John Roberts, the chief justice, has famously equated himself with an umpire who merely calls balls and strikes. The comparison is meant to suggest that justices don’t have their own opinions: They just follow the law.

 

But this is laughable. In almost every major decision last term — and many others over the past decade — the justices divided neatly along partisan lines. The five justices chosen by a Republican president voted one way, and the four chosen by a Democrat voted the other. If the justices are umpires, it sure is strange that Republican and Democratic umpires use vastly different strike zones.

 

This partisanship has turned each court vacancy into a pitched battle. It’s why Republican senators took the extreme step of denying Barack Obama the ability to fill a seat. It’s why the Kavanaugh fight feels so momentous. It’s why liberals care so much about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health.

 

And the biggest damage from the court’s partisanship doesn’t even come from the nasty confirmation battles. It comes from the fact that a major American institution defines itself in an evidently false way. Hypocrisy isn’t good for credibility.

 

The second major threat to the court comes from the radicalness of Republican-appointed justices.

 

It’s true that the Democratic-appointed justices are more reliably liberal than in the past. There are no more conservatives like Byron White (a John Kennedy appointee) or Felix Frankfurter (a Franklin Roosevelt appointee). But the court’s Democrats still range from moderate to progressive. Stephen Breyer is only somewhat to the left of White and well to the right of Sonia Sotomayor, academic analysis shows. Merrick Garland, Obama’s jilted nominee, was also a moderate.

 

There are no more Republican moderates. With Anthony Kennedy gone, every Republican justice is on the far end of the spectrum — among the most conservative since World War II. Kavanaugh would almost certainly join them, as would any other Trump nominee.

 

Already, the Roberts court has often shown itself to be zealously activist. It has thrown out bipartisan legislation on voting rights and campaign finance. It has overruled decades-old precedents on labor unions, antitrust and criminal justice.

 

In the future, there is real reason to worry that the court will block government action on the two biggest threats to this country’s security and stability: climate change and stagnant middle-class living standards.

 

So what can be done about the court? There are no easy solutions.

 

Term limits for justices would be the best change. They would eliminate the high-stakes randomness of replacing justices and better connect the court to the long-term will of the people. With 18-year term limits, each four-year presidential term would automatically come with two appointments. Enacting this change is an enormous political lift, yet it’s worth trying.

 

A less palatable option is for Democrats to expand the court when they next control Washington. Given the outrage of the Garland nomination, Democrats are right to be thinking about this. But I hope they don’t have to resort to it, because it would risk a tit-for-tat battle that could do even more damage.

 

Finally, there is the possibility that Roberts comes to understand the peril to the court. He clearly cares about the court’s credibility, and he has shown flashes of judicial modesty, respecting both precedent and Congress. The biggest example was his split decision on Obamacare. More often, though, he has chosen radical activism.

 

Roberts is never going to turn into a liberal. But it is reasonable to hope that he will show more of the small-c conservatism that the Supreme Court needs. If he allows it to become an all-powerful version of Congress where the legislators happen to wear robes, both his legacy and the country will suffer.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[barmar]

Did a bunch of content from the tail end of of this thread get deleted?

 

If so, by who and why?

 

I seem to recall a response by Chas to one of my postings that I very much want to quote in light of the new gang rape accusations...

I don't see any recent deleted posts. Here's a response by Chas to one of your posts a few days ago.

 

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/72022-has-us-democracy-been-trumped/page__view__findpost__p__959859

[hrothgar]

I don't see any recent deleted posts. Here's a response by Chas to one of your posts a few days ago.

 

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/72022-has-us-democracy-been-trumped/page__view__findpost__p__959859

 

I believe that he has posted since then (and said post is now gone)

[kenberg]

Some posts did vanish. I am trying to decide what to make of the fact that I don't much mind that one or two of mine vanished with them.

 

The story so far:

In an ldrews post that didn't vanish, he asked

Does it really matter? Even if Ford's accusations are true does that effect Kavenaugh's qualifications for the Supreme Court? Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

 

I replied, as did Richard, although Richard's post technically responded to a different ldrews post of the same general topic. Then Chas quoted Richard, referring to it as BS.

 

I considered jumping in again, then figured chas and richard could fight it out while I held their coats, but now I will say a bit.

There are two general lines of defense for Kavanaugh

1. It didn't happen.

2. It doesn't matter.

Line 1 has been getting the most discussion. It now seems clear that there was a culture of alcohol and sex around the school. Kavanaugh was treasurer of the 100 kegs or bust club. Kavanaugh, jokingly or not, approvingly cited the view that "What happens at Georgetown stays at Georgetoen". None of this proves he tried to pull a girl's clothes off but now we might consider that, to the best of my knowledge, she is the only one who has taken a lie detector test regarding the incident. Assaults such she describes are hardly rare at unsupervised parties with young people and booze. It's becoming difficult to adhere to line 1 with a straight face, or at least it would seem that more than a two person he said / she said hearing is in order. Surely what she says cannot simply be written off. Unless, of course, we go to defensive line 2, that it doesn't matter.

 

 

How about line 2?

Anyway, some number of the vanished posts concerned the line 2 defense.

[PassedOut]

From the New Yorker: Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

 

Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

Sure. The longer the delay before voting, the wider the window opens for other women to come forward...

[johnu]

I don't see any recent deleted posts. Here's a response by Chas to one of your posts a few days ago.

 

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/72022-has-us-democracy-been-trumped/page__view__findpost__p__959859

 

IIRC, there was about a page or page and a half of posts that were deleted after my post #11080 on page 554.

[barmar]

IIRC, there was about a page or page and a half of posts that were deleted after my post #11080 on page 554.

We're looking into this.

[PassedOut]

Sure enough: Brett Kavanaugh: third woman expected to make accusations of sexual misconduct

 

Avenatti replied that he was aware of significant evidence of Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, in summary, participating in the targeting of women with alcohol or drugs at house parties in the Washington DC-area in the early 1980s in order to allow a train of men to gang rape them.

 

Avenatti then posted: Senate investigators should pose the following questions to Judge Kavanaugh without delay and provide the answers to the American people, and then listed detailed questions, including: Did you ever target one or more women for sex or rape at a house party? Did you ever assist Mark Judge or others in doing so?

 

On Monday he further posted that his new client has previously worked within the state department, the US Mint and the Department of Justice and has been granted multiple security clearances in the past. The GOP and others better be very careful in trying to suggest that she is not credible, he added.

Now we're beyond "he said, she said," and way beyond the "boys will be boys" excuse.

[cherdano]

Like all men 1000% innocent of any inappropriate sexual behaviour, Kavanaugh goes on Fox News to loudly proclaim his innocence, rather than calling for an investigation that would clear him.

[Chas_P]

Some posts did vanish. I am trying to decide what to make of the fact that I don't much mind that one or two of mine vanished with them.

 

The story so far:

In an ldrews post that didn't vanish, he asked

 

 

I replied, as did Richard, although Richard's post technically responded to a different ldrews post of the same general topic. Then Chas quoted Richard, referring to it as BS.

 

I considered jumping in again, then figured chas and richard could fight it out while I held their coats, but now I will say a bit.

There are two general lines of defense for Kavanaugh

1. It didn't happen.

2. It doesn't matter.

 

Well I'm off for awhile to the lovely little island of Bermuda. I'll lay in the sun, drink a little rum, and dream about days gone past before lunacy prevailed in the good old U. S. A. I'm sure you worthy stalwarts here in the WC will have everything rectified shortly. May the schwartz be with you.

[kenberg]

Well I'm off for awhile to the lovely little island of Bermuda. I'll lay in the sun, drink a little rum, and dream about days gone past before lunacy prevailed in the good old U. S. A. I'm sure you worthy stalwarts here in the WC will have everything rectified shortly. May the schwartz be with you.

 

Everyone is going somewhere, leavng me behind. Poor Ken. . My wife Becky flew to Oregon this morning, we have a new granddaughter. I have two daughters, she has two daughters and a son, between us we now have 12 grandkids ranging in age from 5 days to 25, or maybe that's 26, years. Have a good time, take it easy on both the rum and the sun.

 

I'm joining then Saturday. The plan is to be helpful, but I am hoping we can help get everyone to the Pacific coast, at least for a day.

 

[hrothgar]

Everyone is going somewhere, leavng me behind. Poor Ken. . My wife Becky flew to Oregon this morning, we have a new granddaughter. I have two daughters, she has two daughters and a son, between us we now have 12 grandkids ranging in age from 5 days to 25, or maybe that's 26, years. Have a good time, take it easy on both the rum and the sun.

 

I'm joining then Saturday. The plan is to be helpful, but I am hoping we can help get everyone to the Pacific coast, at least for a day.

 

Congrats on the new grand kid.

 

If you find yourself in Portland, I heartily recommend

 

1. Pok Pok

2. Salt and Straw

3. Powells books

4. Matt's BBQ

5. Beast

[kenberg]

Congrats on the new grand kid.

 

If you find yourself in Portland, I heartily recommend

 

1. Pok Pok

2. Salt and Straw

3. Powells books

4. Matt's BBQ

5. Beast

 

 

We can hope! There is an older sister, approaching 3, so I am expecting to spend time at a playground and other such things. But we do have to eat, so maybe.

 

[hrothgar]

We can hope! There is an older sister, approaching 3, so I am expecting to spend time at a playground and other such things. But we do have to eat, so maybe.

 

Any child (and anyone who is young at heart) would enjoy Salt and Straw....

[y66]

From The Mass Psychology of Trumpism by Eli Zaretsky at LRB (18 September 2018):

 

Since the Republican primaries of 2015-16, some people have turned to psychiatry in an effort to locate the irrational wellsprings of Trump’s victory, but so far little progress has been made. This is because most of the effort has gone into analysing Trump, who is often described as suffering from ‘narcissistic personality disorder’. Not only are such diagnoses, made from a distance, implausible; they also fail to address a more important question: the nature of Trump’s appeal. Constituting something close to a third of the electorate, his followers form an intensely loyal and, psychologically, tight-knit band. They are impervious to liberal or progressive criticisms of Trump or his policies. On the contrary, their loyalty thrives on anti-Trump arguments, and digs in deeper.

 

There is an older body of psychological thought, however, that illuminates the kind of tight bond Trump has forged with a significant minority of Americans. Inspired by Freud, this thought arose following the rise of fascism and Nazism in Europe, when Americans, too, had become wary of authoritarian elements in their society. Southern politics had been rife with race-baiting demagogues like Mississippi’s Theodore Bilbo since the 1890s, and the popularity of the pro-Mussolini radio priest, Father Coughlin, demonstrated the appeal of an authoritarian message to the immigrant North.

 

At the highpoint of the New Deal, it was widely understood that legitimate economic grievances needed to be addressed. But there was something more, which manifested itself in intense loyalty to agitators and demagogues like Coughlin. To understand that devotion, Frankfurt School refugees from Hitler – including Leo Löwenthal and Theodor Adorno – drew on a Freudian-inspired ‘mass psychology’ to analyse anti-Semites and demagogues in the US.

 

Their crucial innovation was the discovery of the special form that authoritarianism takes in democratic societies. Previously, the agitator had been thought of as a kind of hypnotist, while the crowd that responded to him was credulous and childlike. Open to rumour and fear, it demanded strength and even violence from its leaders. As the 19th-century French psychologist Gustave Le Bon put it, the crowd ‘wants to be ruled and oppressed and to fear its masters’. Freud had this model of crowd psychology in mind when he wrote that

 

the members of a group stand in need of the illusion that they are equally and justly loved by their leader; but the leader himself need love no one else, he [must] be of a masterful nature, absolutely narcissistic, self-confident and independent.

 

Hitler, Mussolini, Ataturk and even De Gaulle fit this model, as they drew on mass media, parades, sporting events and film to project themselves as father figures to enthralled nations.

 

Adorno realised, however, that the model only applied in part to American demagogues. What distinguishes the demagogue in a democratic society, he argued in ‘Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda’ (1951), is the identification between the leader and his followers. The narcissism in question is not only Trump’s. More important is that of his followers, who idealise him as they once, in childhood, idealised themselves. Beyond that, the demagogue has a special appeal to wounded narcissism, to the feeling that one has failed to meet standards one has set for oneself.

A special appeal indeed. Now we're talking.

[y66]

Questions Brett Kavanaugh Needs to Answer by NYT Editorial Board:

 

“America’s about fairness,” Brett Kavanaugh said Monday night in an interview with Fox News. “I want a fair process where I can defend my integrity and clear my name as quickly as I can.”

 

Surely there can be no question that America should be about fairness. Yet only a person accustomed to having things go his way in America would assume that it already is.

 

It’s a horrific unfairness, for example, that for generations, untold numbers of American girls and women have had their lives “derailed” by sexual abuse, to use the term of one of Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers, Christine Blasey Ford, while the boys and men who abused them — maturing, telling themselves they’ve set aside boyish ways, eliding, avoiding, forgetting — chugged along toward successful careers and public acclaim.

 

It would also be unfair if Judge Kavanaugh is innocent of such abuse, if he is a thoroughly honest and decent man, and yet is ultimately denied a seat on the Supreme Court because of the allegations against him.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee is not a court of law, and the public can’t expect its members to reach an irrefutable conclusion about what happened. Yet it is now up to these senators, who have so far been putting political calculation well ahead of the interests of justice, to give a nation in tumult over these charges the demonstration of higher purpose and moral seriousness it so desperately needs. If Judge Kavanaugh’s name is, in the end, to be cleared, the only path is through a thorough and fair investigation of the allegations against him.

 

The committee’s 11 Republicans — all of them men — are still refusing to call for an independent investigation, or even to subpoena Mark Judge, Mr. Kavanaugh’s high-school friend and allegedly a witness to the sexual assault of Dr. Blasey. So it’s left to those who care about getting the full story to ask as many questions as possible. Here are a few for Judge Kavanaugh, drawn only from the allegations that have arisen in the weeks since his initial confirmation hearings. Perhaps the Republican senators can get the lawyer whom Mitch McConnell has called their “female assistant” to ask them.

 

Dr. Blasey alleges that you sexually assaulted her in a locked room at a house party in the summer of 1982, when you were 17 and she was 15. She alleges that you were “stumbling drunk” and that she feared for her life. Could she be right about any of this?

 

Dr. Blasey alleges that Mr. Judge was in the room with you and her on the night of the alleged attack. He has said he has “no recollection” of that incident, or of any similar behavior during that time. Elizabeth Rasor, Mr. Judge’s former girlfriend, disputes this. She said he “told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman” and that he “seemed to regard it as fully consensual.” Do you have any knowledge of an incident like the one she describes?

 

Last week, Edward Whelan, a conservative activist who has been closely involved with the Supreme Court nominations by previous Republican presidents, spread a theory on Twitter that Dr. Blasey was telling the truth about being attacked, but that she was mistaken about the identity of her attacker, who he suggested might have been one of your classmates. Senator Orrin Hatch said previously that you had proposed a similar theory to him. Did you have any role in developing Mr. Whelan’s theory? Did you have advance knowledge about his plan to go public with it?

 

A classmate of yours at Yale, Deborah Ramirez, has alleged that you exposed yourself to her at a drunken dormitory party, thrust your penis in her face and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed you away. Is any element of this true?

 

James Roche, who was a college roommate of yours during the time of the alleged incident involving Ms. Ramirez, has said that you were “frequently, incoherently drunk” and that you became “aggressive and even belligerent” at these times. Could this be true?

 

Your high-school yearbook page includes the phrase “100 Kegs or Bust.” Your friend Mr. Judge has described that as a pledge to drink 100 kegs of beer before graduation. Was that your understanding? If not, what did you mean by it?

 

Mr. Judge has written extensively of his heavy drinking during those years. In his memoir about being a teenage alcoholic, he wrote that he “drank too much and did stupid things.” He added, “Most of the time everyone, including the girls, was drunk.” His yearbook page includes the quote, “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.” The memoir included a character, “Bart O’Kavanaugh,” who drank so much that he threw up in a car and passed out. Was that you, and could he be correct in his description of those events?

 

You told Fox News that you have “always treated women with dignity and respect.” Do you stand categorically by that statement?

 

Your high-school yearbook page includes the phrase “Renate Alumnius.” A classmate of yours, Sean Hagan, explained that Renate was a girl at a nearby high school, and the reference to her by you and others on the school’s football team was meant as a boast of sexual conquest. Is that what you meant by the phrase? Do you believe this is treating women with dignity and respect?

 

At Yale, you were a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, which was reputed to disrespect women. One of your female classmates recalled that DKE brothers ransacked women’s rooms, stole their undergarments and wove them into a large flag. Years later, the fraternity was suspended from campus after a video showed recruits chanting, “No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal.” Were you aware of any behavior like this? If so, do you believe it amounts to treating women with dignity and respect?

 

Also at Yale, you belonged to an all-male secret society called Truth and Courage, which was known by the nickname “Tit and Clit.” Were you aware of this nickname? If so, do you believe it treats women with dignity and respect?

 

More broadly, do you dispute the reputations of these groups? If you do not, did you ever feel uncomfortable about being involved with them, or raise any concerns with other members or leadership?

 

One other matter: In your nationally televised acceptance of President Trump’s nomination of you to the Supreme Court, you said, “No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Would you provide the committee with the evidence for that assertion? And do you still stand by it?

[barmar]

What about explaining his speech where he said "What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep"? What kinds of things happened there that need to "stay" there? Were you involved in any of them. Do you think they treat women with dignity and respect?

 

That phrase is a play on a well known slogan about Las Vegas, AKA "Sin City". It suggests that what goes on at Georgetown Prep is also sinful.

[hrothgar]

Latest deposition

 

Made under pain of perjury

The accuser has a security clearance

The accuser claims that Kavenaugh engaged in gage rape

The accuser says that she has witnesses

 

[jjbrr]

Trump raped his wife. Why would this even be a blip on their radar?