Geeto67

Illiteracy is a motherfucker, ain't it?

When talking about chemical dependency addiction - these things change your body. Long term Alcoholics suffer from withdrawal sickness as do opiate addicts - it literally causes them pain to stop putting the chemicals in their body. It also triggers chemicals in their brain to crave the chemicals compulsively. In extreme cases the withdrawal alone will kill them. It's hard to say they have a "choice" to just stop when facing all the symptoms of a disease. nobody is saying that there aren't choices involved in how someone contracts this disease, but that is true of many diseases. The problem, as El Karacho pointed out, is that being dismissive of it as a "choice" because you are mad at the person or whatever doesn't help anything. It doesn't address treatment which is how these things get treated - which is medically. yeah I knew it was tasteless, but I couldn't help my self. sorry.

Well to be fair, it isn't like he was using it anymore....:gabe: There is nothing in that "definition" that suggests or even hints at something being a choice not being a disease. In fact it make the opposite case - once the drugs make the physical and chemical changes in the human body that affects multiple specific locations (Primarily the brain) and produces symptoms. https://books.google.com/books?id=kPQbBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT95&lpg=PT95&dq=disorder+of+structure+or+function+in+a+human,+animal,+or+plant,+especially+one+that+produces+specific+signs+or+symptoms+or+that+affects+a+specific+location+and+is+not+simply+a+direct+result+of+physical+injury.&source=bl&ots=uf9j9-x3Fn&sig=mdtz6GTcB1xACL4uGf-T-7u7-ss&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig5vXLgt7dAhXKg-AKHRjFBigQ6AEwCXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=disorder%20of%20structure%20or%20function%20in%20a%20human%2C%20animal%2C%20or%20plant%2C%20especially%20one%20that%20produces%20specific%20signs%20or%20symptoms%20or%20that%20affects%20a%20specific%20location%20and%20is%20not%20simply%20a%20direct%20result%20of%20physical%20injury.&f=false you are choosing to look at drug abuse as a purely moral issue and choosing to ignore the medical aspects of it and frankly that's just not helping anybody. A good analogy to this drug use and disease are sexual STDs. The act that causes contraction is voluntary - nobody is forcing you to have sex, it's generally limited to this voluntary activity (you typically aren't getting an STD from anything else but sex), and you don't always contract the STD every time to have sex. Under your definition STDs aren't a disease if addiction isn't a disease.

Conservationism in this country has pulled every political conversation so far right, even the reasonable centrist views and objective analysis looks leftist and partisan. I'd say you are being completely fair, and looking at what's being said I'd say the others are being partisan, but that's the new dynamic isn't it - you call me partisan so I call you partisan and the whole thing falls apart. Look at how often I get called a screaming liberal and I'm a registered independent who has voted both Republican and Democrat since I was 18. Here are the obnoxious contradictions that I can't stand in this general conversion: - Accusing the democrats of being obstructionist and stalling for a few extra days so something in Kavanaugh's background can be fully vetted when the republicans delayed merrick garlands confirmation for 293 days for LITERALLY NO CREDIBLE REASON. Garland was even suggested as a supreme court pick by Republican Orrin Hatch, and the majority republican congress refused to even hold the confirmation hearing just because he was Obama's pick. - Accusing the democrats of obstruction at all when it was the clear and admitted strategy of the republicans when they took control of the senate. - Failing to understand how this ties back to Trump. The CIC has currently 19 allegations of sexual misconduct pending against him, but the republican party as a whole said - it was more important for them to get the supreme court seat that to worry about installing a sentient piece of shit in the white house. Trumps actions contributed to the #meetoo movement which is culminating in there hearings. If you lie down with dogs you get fleas, and in this case #meetoo is the flea shampoo. - willingness to ignore signs in Kavanaugh's past because. Tim said it before if he was such a creep this would have come up before but it didn't. Except it has - he's a known creep to anybody applying to a law clerk position with him, the people he has worked for were brought down by sexual misconduct scandals, and we are now starting to see people come forward with other allegations. Is he as bad as some of the others? no, probably not - but he ain't no saint. - ignoring that it was republicans (and some of them on this very same panel) that called for the FBI to investigate the Anita Hill claims, saying it was absolutely the right thing to do. Here they are saying it isn't necessary. So in the two times we have faced this issue, how did those same people go from it being the concrete right thing to do to not being the right thing to do? Timing. They don't really care when timing is at stake and they are trying to beat the midterm election. The right thing to do isn't the thing to do when it is convenient or you only do it when political party is not at stake. It's an all or nothing proposition - if you care about clearing the air, have the FBI investigate it, if you don't then admit that you don't really care and stop putting on a show and take a vote.

Slow your roll - he's not that "Decent" a man: - "two prominent Yale professors had advised female law students at Yale that their physical attractiveness and femininity could play a role in securing a clerkship with Kavanaugh" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua - he was a law clerk for Alex Kozinski, the same Judge who had to resign amid a truck load of sexual misconduct allegations https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/pressuring-harassers-to-quit-can-end-up-protecting-them/2018/01/05/0d44aeba-ea5d-11e7-8a6a-80acf0774e64_story.html - He lied under oath on 9/10 to senator Chris Coons about having received some of Kozinski's racy and well circulated emails. The GOP is blocking the subpoena of the evidence that would either clear him or prove he perjured himself on this and also in his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings. https://theintercept.com/2018/09/25/brett-kavanaugh-alex-kozinski-chris-coons/ - He hired Kozinski's son, Clayton Kozinski, to be his law clerk and helped him get a clerkship with Justice Kennedy. https://abovethelaw.com/2017/07/supreme-court-clerk-hiring-watch-to-know-a-judge-know-her-clerks/ - Kavanaugh's yearbook is full of misogyny https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/new-york-times-kavanaugh-renate-high-school-yearbook/index.html - Mark Judge's book paints a picture of a fairly out of control "Bart O'Kavanaugh" - belived to be Brett. Despite writing 2 books about the subject, Mark cannot suddenly recall the events when it came time for him to corrorborate Brett's story. His Books however, confirm Dr. Ford's timeline. https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-refuses-bart-okavanaugh-question-1142733 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjqtMeUrdzdAhWLiOAKHTw4CdAQqUMwAHoECAUQBQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2F09%2F27%2Fmark-judges-book-validates-christine-fords-timeline-alleged-kavanaugh-assault%2F&usg=AOvVaw2uzCjH06XRhT4poobXEmDI So let's see - we have a privileged, heavy partying, slut shaming, ivy league guy who is accused of rape, who contributed to an atmosphere of sexual misconduct perpetrated by his mentor and boss, with questionable hiring practices that heavily favor nepotism and sexism, and we are supposed to believe he's a good guy who treats women fairly? I don't know where they get this "out of character" stuff for him - his life sounds like a 1980's comedy movie, an especially rape-y 80's comedy (not quite revenge of the nerd's rape-y but close). Oh and while we are on the subject he also opposes Roe v. Wade, has consistently ruled against a woman's right to choose, but he "respects women". He also dissented against people's rights to sure for human rights violations committed by a corporation or the federal government (Doe v. Exxon mobil, Kiyemba v. Bush). But no...tell me what a great guy he is.

"white guy rant" is a stereotype. As Tim is often fond of saying they are stereotypes for a reason. If you look at the the current senators "ranting" about how this is a political dog and pony show they are all white men putting on a show of their own. Want to know the difference between an angry white guy rant and an angry anybody else rant? the white guy rant is less likely to end up with someone going to jail. Unless there is a gun involved, then we just call it a mass shooting. :gabe: Regardless as to how I would feel, I don't know that I would rush to try and prove that it may not be wrongful by publicly being an angry entitled douche.

well said. /thread

Kavanaugh Hearing Opening remarks: "I am going to respond to all these allegations that I am a violent sexual predator in the angriest tone I can muster because people won't believe that I am capable of holding down a person and trying to violently and forcibly rape a woman if I use my most agressive angry ivy league white guy rant tone" :dumb:

I just really believe in Issue 1 and I would like to see people get behind it. The traditional approach isn't working, it's costing you, me, and every one else who pays taxes in this city and state a lot of money and there is no end in sight. That's money that could be going to schools and roads. All the people advocating against Issue 1 are the people whose livelihood relies on incarcerating people, who profit from it, or who gain political points for being "hard on crime". They don't have an alternate solution, just want to keep doing what isn't working. Sorry Cordell, no bachelors degree, but if you vote for Issue 1 i'll buy you a cup of coffee.

What's your point? that Issue 1 won't put those people in jail for multiple years? or that those are exclusions - You got 75% of the way there but didn't make the final point you were trying to make. Between 2013 and now 83-85% of new heroin users came in through legal pharmaceutical drugs. You can claim it's a recreational choice all you want, but the reality is recreational addicts who chose to start with heroin or fentanyl are a small portion of opoid addicts and their numbers haven't really been increasing, but the numbers on addicts who started with legal prescription opoids and moved into this is growing fast enough to call it an epidemic. So all the evidence you need is just what you see in your small world and nothing that happened before you were a LEO or what is happening on the national stage matters, just because in your little beat you see a bunch of constantly in trouble junkies and you think that is the sum total of the entire problem. If you can't see it with your own two eye's it's made up. Look I am not saying the work you do isn't important, or that what you see isn't happening. I am just saying that this problem goes beyond whatever same 6 people you run into on your small regular beat. Since 1996 (the same year Oxycontin was brought to market) the use of illegal opoids has increased dramatically - more than we have ever seen before, and the majority is tied to legal opoids. You can do your own homework on this you don't have to take my word for it, the horrible part about this epidemic is that it's going to continue to happen whether you believe it what is causing/contributing to it or not. I understand and I mostly agree....however.....It is an undisputed fact that Perdue Pharma (the maker of oxycontin) lied to Physicians, Hospitals, and the American public at large about how addictive it was while heavily marketing it for ALL types of pain releif that the standard pain meds at the time were not addressing. The Justice Department investigated this in 2007 and made a recommendation that the majority of it's executives face multiple count felonies for this fraud. The "W" Bush administration, heavily funded by the pharma industry, elected instead to charge 3 executive with misdemeanor mislabeling charges to which they plead to. It was an amazing travesty of justice to the American people, think about it - this company was allowed to knowing lie about the addictive properties of it's medicine, actively worked to hide and suppress real information about the drug's addictive properties, pay dr's generously to prescribe it telling them it's safe for a lot of things, and then got to avoid taking any responsibility for creating this huge mess by paying a small fee on failing to put it on the label. We can't go back and charge them for those felony charges retroactively, The "W" administration fucked all of american by letting these guys off the hook. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/health/purdue-opioids-oxycontin.html Now lets put this in perspective - Don't you think the company that lied about how addictive the drug was, and hid the fact that not taking it will cause you pain, contributed to the situation of people abusing their prescriptions by taking more than prescribed? Do you think a dr would have prescribed this medication for the majority of cases if he knew that in the majority of patients it would make their pain management more difficult by causing withdrawal pain and carrying a high likelihood of addiction? It's easy to point the finger and say "well it's the patient's fault for taking more than prescribed" if we knew about these concerns before hand, but I somehow think that the drug would not have been as widely prescribed and the dosage and regimen would have been completely different if everyone knew the trust upfront and hadn't been actively mislead by the drug companies, and maybe we wouldn't have near the problem we have now. I agree, and this is kind of what this issue turns around. Opiates cause the patient pain when the patient stops taking them, and withdrawal sickness or dope sickness has absolutely killed people. So the patient takes the opiate to turn a debilitating pain into a manageable pain, but then finds that the longer they take the pain starts backsliding to debilitating, and if they stop the get to debilitating pain quick and plus have to deal with dope sickness on top - so they take more trying to stay ahead of the pain so they can do their job, pick up their kids, and generally get some semblance of normal in their life. And maybe long term their original pain heals and goes away, they are still stuck trying to keep the dope sickness at bay till they go broke, get caught, or overdose. I don't know that everybody want's to be "pain free" but near everybody wants their pain to be managed so they can at least get back to the majority of their life activities. It's a little unfair to say people's expectations are too high when the drug it self is adding to their pin long term. yeah, maybe that's part of it too, how much a part? i don't know. It certainly provides an incentive for Dr's to provide a drug that was very effective short term in alleviating pain but they were lied to about it's addictive properties.

how long does it have to be? I have one but it's only like 38" long. I use it to look inside motorcycle engines mostly so I didn't buy the long one. I think it has like an 8mm head.

Prison isn't working for addicts, and the majority of low level possession isn't suppliers pushing weight - it's recreational addicts. If they are a repeat (3rd offense) offender then treatment isn't working for them either and you can feel free to spend on incarceration and it will come with a heavy sentence. This isn't a measure to clear out the lifetime junkies - it's there to stem the tide of people coming into it from the prescription opoid crisis, very few of whom actually end up long term users. If there are other circumstances that put them in prison, then those aren't going to be non-violent circumstances, and maybe removing them from society for a while is best, they will still get treatment and they won't be out walking the streets. If addiction was a choice. But it isn't. Once your body is physically addicted to something like fentanyl or Heroin or any other opoid - not taking it makes you very sick. It requires medical intervention and a treatment program. You can't just decide to stop taking it one day and everything is fine. The "recreational" users we are talking about here aren't recreational like marijuana, they are functional addicts, people who are chemically addicted but whose lives have not spiraled out of control yet. There are plenty of cases of people having functional heroin and opoiod addiction for years, even decades, just are there are alcoholics who can do the same. It will catch up to them eventually either through financial or legal trouble, so why not take the approach that when they get caught up in legal trouble we get them the medical treatment they need. Blah Blah Blah....the scary socialist is in the window, whaaa whaaa....The "war on drugs" has only proven to do one thing - turn public money into private money through the privatized prision system. It hasn't helped the victims, it hasn't helped those incarcerated, it hasn't helped society. The correct way to fight this isn't through the end user, it's electing law makers who will actually do something about the Pharmaceutical industry's transgressions against the American public. Regulate them, and you stem the tide of new users and then treatment and lenient drug sentencing isn't necessary anymore. Find politicians who don't take pharma money and actually want to stop it at the source. We don't have an epidemic because people suddenly think Heroin is more fun than netflix, we have an epidemic because these drug companies mislead the doctors, mislead the patients, paid lots of money for healthcare providers to push these drugs unnecessarily, and is now making money hand over fist manufacturing the drugs needed to treat the addiction (methadone). or continue bitching about red scare and snowflakes and other such nonsense...choice is yours.

FWIW, can you at least try and find him a manual XJ? Although the Jeeps used some variation of the tough as nails Chrysler 904 trans (itself a 727 torque-flight derivative) , they are literally the most boring pedestrian things to drive and they shift so lazy you think you left it at home on the sofa watching soap operas. If you can find a 2000 or 2001 stick it will be an NV3550, 1988-1999 it's an AX15. Both are excellent manual transmissions and way more fun than a mush box automatic.

Does she though? most of it is speculative.... Except not really, It's sort of a half truth. There have been 11 other states that have passed similar laws (some that go even further toward leniency than proposed) and from the perspective of incarceration for a crime yes they are lenient - but that is kind of the point. Traditional incarceration policies have not been working to stem the issue at all and being lenient toward putting people in jail seems to be working in those 11 other states (most of whom are areas with an epidemic like problem). Where it is not lenient is investing in rehab and other programs to address the root cause of the problem - the addiction itself. It that regard it's fairly progressive and as those other 11 states show seems to be working to some degree. Except in those other states this has not borne out to be the case. Montana's drug intervention program (launched in 2016) is already bearing out results and they at one point had one of the largest methamphetamine epidemics. This is pure speculation and it actually smells a little bit of the republican party line more than a researched talking point. She literally confuses the Felony charge for being the carrot and not the stick. I mean read this again - it's pretzel logic. She's right the court is effective with the carrot of treatment and support and issue 1 actually seeks to increase that, she's wrong about the stick part or that a felony is a form of "carrot". But here is the thing 1) Issue 1 would require the sentence in probation and 2) mandatory treatment comes with it's own penalty. If the person refuses treatment, the probation is lifted and the incarceration is applied. Also if you refuse to go to court ordered treatment it has it's own criminal penalty for failing to obey a court order. Is it the hefty penalty of a felony? no, actually it's the Sheriff collecting the person and putting them into involuntary treatment and incarcerating them for a year. Is there a weakness here? yes, ohio has something called Casey's law: "Under Casey’s law, a person suffering from drug or alcohol abuse will not be ordered to undergo involuntary treatment unless that person presents an imminent threat of danger to their self, family or others as a result of alcohol or drug abuse, or there exists a substantial likelihood of such a threat of danger in the near future", which means the court may be prohibited from ordering involuntary treatment unless the standard of harm to themselves or others is met. But that's not a problem with issue 1, that's a problem with another law that needs to be changed. which leads me to.... She's right that the general assembly wouldn't have time to fix all that needs to be fixed before jan 1 2018. She's wrong about it being frozen in time though, and the bill could easily be amended with a later implementation date to provide time for the bill to be adjusted. Now let's introduce partisan politics in it. Maureen is a republican. And not just any republican, she is both a former Prosecutor (1995-1997) and one who has a score of .92 on the Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff Ideology scale. For comparison, most ohio republicans scored .062 where 1 is an extremest conservative 0 is non-partisan and any negative number is progressive. The Prosecutors office has already openly opposed this measure, and some speculate it is because it will actually mean budget cuts to their office and a reduction in staff and workload. Most Ohio republicans have gotten behind the opposition of Issue 1 because of the optics of it being "soft on crime". We have already heard the exact same speculative and specious rhetoric from Mike DeWine, Robert Sprague, Don Fraser (and his daughter Shea), and other notable local republicans. All people connected to the prosecution and drug court side of the issue who stand to benefit from the status quo. Nothing is new here - the opposition to it is just more "tough on crime" politicking than it is seeking to be a solution to a very real problem ohioans are facing.

I hadn't even thought about how the turbos got fed oil, yeah that was probably a mess.

I kind of get the idea, I mean why shouldn't your trunk get as hot as your engine bay, but I always wondered with those super long charge and down pipes what the lag must be like.

I'm with you on this, I love those seats esp.

memory's a funny thing. So far she has recounted some pretty specific details about the house and the room, but can't remember how she got to the party or how she left or what day/time it took place. We will see what her testimony Thursday brings. even if she had been recounting it to someone for the last 36 years it's possible for her to forget details and for the story to change slightly because...well...it was a long time ago and memory is not a fixed thing. At the same time, Mark Judge who was BK's friend at the time wrote 2 books about this time period in their lives and he claims he doesn't remember the party either, despite being named by Dr Ford as being the other person in the room. then again both books mention frequent alcoholic blackouts so.... I am still more concerned about all the different times BK might have lied under oath during previous confirmation hearings and senate hearings.

Well you aren't anybody and honestly you have no incentive politically to believe her. It's a good thing I don't value you determination of credibility, the only thing that scares me is that one day you may be on a jury. Remember, she doesn't have a third party account written about her being incoherently drunk, making repeated poor choices, and generally being a douchebag. He does. You don't like that the issue turns on eyewitness testimony, and because it is "he said, she said" you are unwilling to consider anything else that might tip the scales one way or the other. Again, glad you aren't a legal professional, but then again if you were - you'd probably have a different opinion on it. yeah, THAT's the reason you won't be appointed to the supreme court. :rolleyes: still not relevant.

Then why is this an issue for you? Even if the democrats are being opportunistic, she doesn't stand to win anything from using this as a tool. Removing politics out of it and using your strongest motive theory, it's still her believing he isn't fit to hold SCOTUS office because she was attacked and him lying about it to secure the confirmation winning out over any other possible motives. You'd put doubt in his mind. "Reasonable" is a legal term of art that considers the "common sense" of an "average" person in society. There is a specific definition that doesn't apply to both your example (causing doubt in one person) or this senate hearing. Dr Ford has to overcome an unreasonable amount of politically motivated opinions against her - it's an impossible standard. The only reason the hearing is willing to hear her at all is to appear sympathetic to the voter base in the looming midterm - if they weren't worried about optics in the midterms, she could produce a video of the assault and they still wouldn't hear her testimony - they don't need to they have the majority where it counts. Then why are you rushing to their defense? Seems odd.

Just in case you forgot what we are talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credibility Because she submitted written notes, corroborated by other witnesses, that show a discussion regarding the assault before the current situation in the context of seeking treatment. Because there is other testimony, attesting to her discussion of this when it was relevant to psychological treatment and also evidence of this affect on her behavior, before it was a politically relevant question. It's "a little more" than "she just said so. No, it's about the double standard you hold for your team against others. Liars are ok if you win, but not when they oppose you.

Technically Kavanaugh has the greater motive for lying in this case because he actually has something at stake to win or lose. Dr. Ford personally only has a losing proposition based on the history of how accusers are treated and nothing to gain by Brett not getting the seat since the GOP will just pick a name off the list of 26 other qualified GOP potential nominees. Weighing the motives - yeah it still doesn't look good for BK. But whatever - weighing the motives is just a subjective way to rationalize your support for BK. Reasonable Doubt isn't the standard here. That may be the standard in the criminal case if there is ever one brought, but the standard is actually change the old dude's mind that he has already made up because of political motives. It's kind of an impossible standard that no one is going to be happy with. If Merrick Garland didn't put you off voting for republicans, then why should this put you off for voting democrats?

See greg's post above. I'm sorry that you think that it's ok for them to stall a supreme court appointment for a year but that isn't working the system. In fact it was considered by many Unconstitutional: https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/old-uploads/originals/documents/Con%20Law%20Scholars%20on%20Scotus%20Vacancy.pdf When I say many, I mean the preeminent constitutional law scholars in this country (some of them politically republican themselves). The problem with a constitutional violation perpetrated by the senate is they are usually the ones legislating enforcement against said violation. Or to put it simply - you are completely ok with republicans defying the constitution and then doing nothing about defying the constitution because it helps their cause, But you object to what's going on now because there is a penis involved? whether you like it or not, Dr. Ford's allegation is credible. Don't like that democrats are making an issue about it - tough shit, it doesn't make it any less credible. Maybe it's a little opportunistic but it's not unconstitutional. Aren't you one of these "too many liberties with the constitution" guys? the too biggest offenses against the constitution were committed in our lifetimes by the republican party (Bush v. Gore in 2000 and Merrick Garland's stalled nomination) and you don't seem to have a problem with them, but somehow the interpretational justice system we have currently goes too far? :dumb: Blumenthal is still not relevent. He's just a dude running for an office, he has no sway and honestly it's the voters of CT's problem to deal with his lying. As for making it about trump, well yeah dude - you can't really help to install one of the biggest, lousiest (objectively bad at it as he gets caught in his own lies constantly), liar in the history of the office and then expect to not get called a hypocrite for calling out someone who lies

That's a false statement. There is evidence. It's not a lot of evidence and it's not as weighty as a police report or pictures of the brusies, but to say there is ZERO evidence means you either aren't paying attention or are delusional. Can you have less than zero? I mean Robert Downey Junior did in the 80's but that involved a lot of drugs and also was fiction. You see how laughable you are being right now? What are you talking about? First off, this is the system working - the mockery of the system was a bunch of senators not doing thier job for a year because they just didn't like that the democrats got to pick a supreme court judge. There wasn't even a scandal and they didn't even dislike his politics, they just didn't like who nominated him. Also what does Richard Blumenthal have to do with this in any measure? seriously? and where do you get off being "high horse" about the lying of a senator when you yourself put a person that lies on a constant basis in the white house and continue to support him. nice double standard you have there.

you didn't answer a single one of my questions. I sometimes forget that I am talking to people who aren't saavy with legal standards. Burden of Proof as a legal concept in government proceedings refers to the legal threshold that must be met to justify an outcome. This isn't the same thing as saying "nobody has to prove anything" which would be dumb given the context. In senate hearings like this one there is no legal standard for burden of proof. It's just what the senators are willing to believe. Take the politics out of it for a second - many of the conservative senators have gone on record as saying, BEFORE all the testimony has been heard and the evidence has been presented, that there isn't anything that will change their minds. Do you have a problem with that? I do, and not because politics are a team sport, but it basically sends the message that this is all a show and they don't care about the nominee so long as he is willing to toe the line. Republicans have been burned by SC appointments before, notably Kennedy and Souter, where once appointed the judge turns out to be more moderate than the extremist they were looking for, so I get why they want to ram an old boys club guy like Kavanaugh through. Also, I should note that this timeline and sense of urgency is manufactured. They delayed Merrick Garland for a year for no good reason than they wanted the clock to run out and for the majority to shift so they could vote him down. They are worried about the same thing happening to them here, quite a Hypocritical standard if you ask me. Greg pretty much summed up what I wanted to say more eloquently. I will add this though, I am witholding final judgement on him as to whether he did or didn't do it until all the evidence is presented and heard. However, since I was a litigator once upon a time I view things from that lens, if this were a criminal or civil suit and I were Kavanaugh's lawyer - based specifically on what we know in the public so far, I would be advising him to take a plea deal or settle the case and not go to trial. He has a real credibility problem and she has enough evidence to bolster her credibility that I wouldn't feel confident taking this to trial for an acquittal or not guilty plea on his behalf (I might do it anyway in the criminal trial because of the stakes and the burden of proof is higher but I wouldn't expect to win).