ACLU

The ACLU Usually Stays Neutral on Judicial Nominees, but It Just Came Out Against Brett Kavanaugh

"We oppose him in light of the credible allegations of sexual assault against him."

|

Kavanaugh
Joshua Roberts/REUTERS/Newscom

The American Civil Liberties Union has decided to oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, citing the allegations of sexual misconduct against the embattled judge.

This is an unusual step for the ACLU, which almost never takes a position on judicial nominations. In its 98-year history, the civil liberties organization's national board has only come out against a specific Supreme Court candidate in four cases.

"As a nonpartisan organization, the ACLU does not oppose Judge Kavanaugh based on predictions about how he would vote as a Justice," explains ACLU President Susan Herman in a statement. "We oppose him in light of the credible allegations of sexual assault against him."

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Friday to advance Kavanaugh's nomination with the understanding that the FBI would conduct a limited investigation of the claims made by Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor who has accused Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her at a high school party 35 years ago. Kavanaugh has emphatically denied the accusation.

As of yet, there is no evidence that corroborates Ford's story, and other alleged attendees of the party have failed to back up her account. But Kavanaugh's evasive and misleading statements about his teenage drinking have made it easier to believe that he is hiding something.

Thus I can understand why the ACLU would make an exception in this case—there is good reason to be concerned about Kavanaugh's character, though absent additional information it is impossible to say with any certainty what actually happened at that party 35 years ago. (Kavanaugh is also accused of other instances of sexual misconduct in his high school and college years, but these allegations are more flawed than Ford's.)

But it would be easier to accept the ACLU's anti-Kavanaugh stance as a one-off move if the organization had not done so much recently that makes it appear like it's mutating into a generic progressive organization. The ACLU's Twitter feed recently seemed to endorse a catcalling ban, and the group's Michigan chapter sent a letter to Walmart imploring the company to stop selling Redskins merchandise. (The letter heavily implied that continuing to stock Redskins gear was contributing to a hostile educational environment in a local school, and thus possibly violating the law.) Former board member Wendy Kaminer has expressed serious concerns that the ACLU is backpedaling on some of its foundational free speech commitments in cases where the speech in questions is offensive to the progressive left. (Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen had a different perspective.)

The ACLU has done so much to protect the civil liberties of all kinds of people. It would be a shame if it became just another left-of-center group, primarily interested in rights violations that affect those in good standing with intersectional progressivism. The decision to oppose Kavanaugh might be perfectly defensible on its own, but it certainly adds to this impression.

NEXT: Judge Willett and Justice Sotomayor Attack Qualified Immunity for Cops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As a nonpartisan organization, the ACLU does not oppose Judge Kavanaugh based on predictions about how he would vote as a Justice…

    The cynic in me says none of that is true of the modern ACLU.

    1. You’re not a cynic, you’re a moron who believes whatever the GOP propaganda machine tells you to believe.

      1. And apparently Soave, the newest member of the GOP propaganda machine.

        1. Who did the ACLU gang rape?

          1. That’s easy, who ever is convenient for political assassination this week.

          2. No one, same as Kavanaugh.

            1. But we surely agree that he did individually attempt rape (again, always at least with other boys present), got a citation for most vomiting during beach week, bragged about fucking the campus slut, and did alcohol enemas.

              1. Tony|10.1.18 @ 12:28PM|#
                “But we surely agree that he did individually attempt rape (again, always at least with other boys present), got a citation for most vomiting during beach week, bragged about fucking the campus slut, and did alcohol enemas.”

                We can surely agree that Tony is a lying piece of shit.

                1. Lying requires an intent to decieve. Tony is just a fucking idiot.

                  1. Is that Brett’s excuse too?

                    1. you just admitted you’re an idiot.

                    2. Please use last names, too, I implore you.

                      If only so we can tell who you’re insulting at any given moment.

              2. No. We surely don’t.

      2. Physician, heal thyself.

      3. Go team!

      4. Geez, Tone, who peed in your cereal this morning?

        You don’t think it’s at all possible that their political views, mostly on the left, could affect their view of Kavanaugh and give the organization reason to oppose him publicly? Your naivete is touching.

        1. It is not the left’s fault that the right has become fucking crazy.

          1. Keep the hate alive, Tony

          2. Actually it is almost entirely the left’s fault. If anyone could have a rational, logical conversation with the left, perhaps we could folks digging themselves into extreme positions.
            But lefties like yourself can’t even begin to have one single rational conversation, without resorting to labeling the other side a racist, sexist, bigot, hick, clinger, mouth-breather, hillbilly, denier, anti-science, or religious nut.

            1. What is the first opinion that comes to your mind if someone mentions the scientific consensus on climate change?

              1. Tony|10.1.18 @ 12:30PM|#
                “What is the first opinion that comes to your mind if someone mentions the scientific consensus on climate change?”

                Mostly that you’re a fucking liar.

              2. “scientific consensus”

                Well, as a scientist myself, well versed in the primary literature surrounding ‘climate change’, I would first point out that there is no consensus on climate change as a whole. There is consensus on one piece; that we were in a planetary warming period, matching historic 30-40 year cycles. It may be at or coming to an end based on current data, but that is not conclusive.
                There is no consensus whatsoever on the anthropogenic contribution to the warming trend. This is a false political talking point that never had basis in actually polling of real climate scientists. That 97% number bandied about was a farce perpetuated by non-scientists who were too lazy to look where that number actually came from.

                1. The stooge is going to ignore you now, because you replied to him intelligently.

                2. Well, as a scientist myself…

                  WHERE’S MY FLYING CAR, EGGHEAD

                3. Man, Mike, that was a waste of a rational response.

              3. “”What is the first opinion that comes to your mind if someone mentions the scientific consensus on climate change?””

                That we all agree there was an ice age?

              4. What is the first opinion that comes to your mind if someone mentions the scientific consensus on climate change?

                “If those oxygen-thieving hypocrites flying their carbon-spewing private jets down to their swanky climate cultist conferences to lecture the rest of us about our ‘carbon footprint’ really believe in any of that blatantly fraudulent pseudo-science they’re spewing, why don’t they do all humanity a favor and stop breathing already?”

              5. Tony, which study are you referring to for scientific consensus? Cook or Oreskes? Both have huge problems, but want to see if you are attempting to argue honestly or just an idiot.

              6. What is the first opinion that comes to your mind if someone mentions the scientific consensus on climate change?

                argumentum ad populum

              7. See? You’re exactly what MikeP2 is talking about.

              8. See? You’re exactly what MikeP2 is talking about.

              9. True science does not rely on consensus. It relies on evidence. Junk science follows emotions. No evidence is needed!

                1. You don’t accept the evidence either you retarded cunt.

          3. Tony didn’t actually watch the hearings.

            1. I took a sick day and watched the whole goddamn thing. Of the two witnesses permitted to testify, I noticed, one wasn’t drunk in the middle of the day.

              1. All of the hearings you fucking retard.

                1. Tony watched the soap opera parts, so you get an idea of his priorities.

              2. Tony “I watched A WHOLE DAY!! I IZ INFORMED!!!!”

                lololololol

                No one believes you watched any of it except the snippets on Fox which for some stupid fucking Reason you chug almost as hard as you chug Obama’s cock.

                1. I heard the whole thing I the radio. Only a Marxist artisan hack, such as yourself, could possibly buy her bullshit story Tony.

                  But then, you’re. Sociopathic pederast Marxist. So anything goes, right?

              3. I wonder how many of the Senators were drunk? If I were one of them I certainly would want to be.

          4. It is not the left’s fault that the right has become fucking crazy.

            Tony, if you keep up this level of projection we are going to have to hold you down and tattoo “Panasonic” on your forehead.

      5. Tomy, you’re only antagonizing him because you hope to get Fisted.

      6. you’re a moron who believes whatever the GOP propaganda machine tells you to believe.

        Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle ‘negro’.

        1. That’s funny.

      7. Well, that ad hominem attack was credible.

    2. The cynic in me says that “Libertarians” aren’t libertarian anymore either:

      The Libertarian Party Officially Opposes the Concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty

      Soave, you and every other “libertarian” shill for the Democrats have got some ‘splainin’ to do for why you support Soviet-style Presumption of Guilt now.

      1. If you heard the 2 LP stooges, Weld & Johnson, while campaigning in 2016, then you would know the Libertarian Party is deep in the toilet….They were for govt. forcing people to bake cakes for Sodomite weddings against their religious & conscience, they were for expanding the FBI & NSA surveillance BS & other horrible positions totally against Liberty & the Constitution!

        1. I’m registered Libertarian to keep the name on the ballot, but the actual party is a disgrace.

  2. The ACLU Appears to Endorse a Ban on Catcalling, Despite Huge Free Speech Concerns
    What a deleted tweet says about the direction of a civil liberties organization.
    Robby Soave Aug. 3, 2018 6:30 pm

    My fear?and it’s a fear that this stray tweet would seem to confirm?is that free speech is becoming a secondary concern for the ACLU. Generic lefty social justice goals take precedence. And so the notion that the organization would stridently oppose catcalling legislation is no longer obvious to the people who work there; they think it’s a progressive organization, not a civil liberties organization.

    1. I agree, the ACLU has long abandoned civil liberties in favor of leftist big government policies. They don’t defend the 2nd amendment, and abandoning free speech protection in favor of hate speech laws is enough for me to know it’s been captured by leftist community organizers. Survey’s I’ve received in the mail from them also suggest that’s the case.

      As for Soave’s “there is good reason to be concerned about Kavanaugh’s character” I’ve seen no solid evidence to support this statement (just substantiated allegations). On the other side, Kavanaugh’s actions over the last 25 years provides solid evidence supporting his good character, as does the endorsement of many of his acquaintances over the years. The Democrats have a long history of making last minute unverifiable and impossible to disprove allegations against their political enemies> I can’t think of a single case in which anyone has been prosecuted for making such allegations, but I have seen such people being rewarded for such allegations as in legal help, speaking fees, book income, etc.

      1. Here’s more of that quote: “…there is good reason to be concerned about Kavanaugh’s character, though absent additional information it is impossible to say with any certainty what actually happened at that party 35 years ago.”

        Should read, “that alleged party”, but Soave has drunk more Kool Aid than he apparently realizes.

  3. The funny thing is that as has been pointed out repeatedly by the commentators here – if the ACLU actually gave a damn about civil liberties anymore there are plenty of issues to oppose BK based on his 4th amendment jurisprudence.

    1. You’d think if the Democrats actually gave a shit about that, they would have cited that as their main concern in recommending not to confirm him. Instead, they used the hearing to grandstand about their stupid pet causes, never brought up the allegations against him during the same hearing (if Feinstein knew about this for two months, guaran-damn-teed her Donk colleagues knew), and made his confirmation all about hearsay groping and his drinking habits in college rather than his actual judicial positions.

      Perhaps the only good thing about this circus is that the Dems have revealed that nothing they do or say can be taken in good faith.

      1. The democrats party is one of sociopaths, sexual predators, and marxists.

    2. This

      Regardless of where one stands on how credible the allegations against him are, there is zero argument to be made against the credibility of concerns about his 4th amendment stances.

      That’s what has bothered me all along about this entire farce: things that happened in 35 years ago and that rely completely on he said/she said competing testimonies will never be 100% settled. But he HAS AN ACTUAL TRACK RECORD as a judge on 4th Amendment issues! It’s even a recent one, FFS!

      I get it that the dems in the senate were not about to press very hard on this because they don’t have much problem with abusing the 4th amendment so long as it’s one of their team behind it. (That’s why domestic spying was terrible when Bush was behind it but fine and not worth talking about under Obama.) But I expected more from the ACLU! The ACLU is supposed to take a principled stand on protecting civil liberties. That they can’t even be bothered to mention the 4A as a reason to oppose Kavanaugh is telling. They obviously don’t care about their mission anymore and have become just another cheerleader for one of the two teams.

      1. Principles? You’re talking about principles? We live in a post-principle world, in case you haven’t been paying attention.

        1. It’s called postmodernism.

      2. Principles? You’re talking about principles? We live in a post-principle world, in case you haven’t been paying attention.

        1. But I’m repeating myself.

          1. It’s worth repeating:

            ACLU: “Principles? We don’t need no stinkin’ principles!”

    3. …not to mention his complicity in forcing Americans to buy Obamacare-compliant medical insurance as a condition for breathing.

  4. I have to say I’m a touch annoyed by this new orwellian definition of “credible”.

    1. Depends on what your definition of “is” is.

      1. That’s some incredible insight there!

    2. I know Hulks that are more credible than this bitch.

    3. You know someone is credible if they’re saying what you want to hear.

    4. “Credible” is only the beginning of the NewSpeak in progress. How about, “good reason”?

      Soave: “… I can understand why the ACLU would make an exception in this case?there is good reason to be concerned about Kavanaugh’s character, though absent additional information it is impossible to say with any certainty what actually happened at that party 35 years ago.”

      Convincing information showing that “that party” actually happened would be a start on a “good reason”, but the actual information points the other direction..

  5. What “credible allegations”? What “misleading and evasive statements”?

    Ford’s allegation is only credible in the sense of being something that could realistically have happened. She has no corroborating witnesses and no evidence. The other allegations aren’t worth the electrons expended in spreading them.

    Kavanaugh has said, repeatedly and credibly, that he doesn’t know what Ford is talking about. So have many, many people who knew him then and now.

    This is nothing more or less than a textbook case of telling a big enough lie often enough that people start to believe it, and that’s why the Democrats and their media allies pushing this story are the purest, “must be stopped” variety of evil.

    1. But he is rightfully embarrassed about underage drinking, so he must be a rapist.

      1. He’s a liar and he lied to people investigating the truth of a well sourced claim of attempted rape. I don’t need to call him an unrepentant attempted rapist.

        1. Again, how is it “well sourced”? And what did he lie about? At this point it’s unsupported accusations all around, so the only sane thing is to assume it’s all BS.

          You know, I haven’t even gotten around to whether I support Kavanaugh or not based on the merits, because now it’s all about these he-touched-my-butt accusations. Which is what the Dems wanted, but looks like it may not turn out the way they had in mind.

          1. The claim is weighty because she personally knew and interacted with Kavanaugh. There is no defense in that regard. There really are only questions of her sanity and honesty and she answered some of it when she testified and when she submitted to a polygraph. She named people who show in Kavanaugh’s calendar as drinking buddies. Like I said it’s really only a question of her honesty and we test that through witness examination. Her honesty, openness, willingness to answer all the questions, willingness to acknowledge the weakness of her memory. He was damn near the opposite. He gave false testimony. He tried to make it about Clinton conspiracies. He didn’t answer straightforward questions. I can make you drink the water but there it is.

            1. “Can’t make you drink the water but there it is”

              1. I think you mean Kool Aide.

            2. “”She named people who show in Kavanaugh’s calendar as drinking buddies.””

              Yes, and they didn’t back her story.

              1. The problem is, their presence in Kavanaugh’s calendar did back her story?not conclusively, but circumstantially. She had no notion Kavanaugh had a calendar like that when she named those people, yet there they are. As evidence, that’s considerably more than nothing.

                1. “As evidence, that’s considerably more than nothing.”

                  To true believers, it is.

                2. “As evidence, that’s considerably more than nothing.”

                  Not really, they ran in the same social circles.

                  1. They ran in the same circle, they drank, therefore guilty of sexual assault.

                    That’s what we are suppose to believe.

                  2. “Not really, they ran in the same social circles.”

                    All I see is that was that she was aware of the existence of his social circle. She could populate his social circle by knowing Chris Garrett, looking at Mark Judge’s book and make a couple of guesses. Supposedly Chris Garrett introduced them based on her testimony, but he denied having anything useful to provide for the investigation. Leland denies knowing Kavanaugh, so it doesn’t seem much overlap in their social circles.

                3. Stephen, is it circumstantial that her best child hood friend said she had never met Kavanaugh and didn’t know what Ford was talking about? Or do we ignore that?

            3. For God’s sake, her willingness to acknowledge the weakness of her memory is not a point in her favor. The holes in her story are NOT helpful to her case. The way some have turned this upside down amazes me.

              1. The holes are not helpful just like Kavanaugh’s drinking is not helpful to his defense. She met it head on. He lied. That’s the problem for his credibility. When you lie about one thing it’s reasonable to believe you’re lying about other things. That’s like a proverb from God.

                1. Admitting she doesn’t remember accurately has, as Chipper Jones said, become evidence to believe her to some people.

                  And these same people expect to not be laughed at.

                  1. It has come to this: #MeTOO movement believes ALL WOMEN no matter what the facts or evidence says!

                2. She lied about being unable to fly. By your own logic, it’s reasonable to believe that she’s lying about everything else. It’s like a proverb from God..

            4. “she testified and when she submitted to a polygraph”

              This again. WTF. Polygraph might as well be reading entrails.

              1. Or employing phrenology.

              2. “she testified and when [sic, assume writer meant “then” ] she submitted to a polygraph”

                As far as I understand, she submitted to a polygraph, announced that she had taken and passed the polygraph, and then testified.

                Even if you accept the premise of polygraphs, they would still have a finite error rate, wouldn’t work with sociopaths or the deluded.

                If she failed the polygraph we would never have heard that she had taken it. Giving the opportunity to throw out failures would seriously alters the probabilities associated with the diagnosis.

                Maybe her family therapist thought she was insane, but you’ll never see that released by Katz.

            5. “The claim is weighty because she personally knew and interacted with Kavanaugh. ”

              Base assertion without evidence. There is no proof she knew Kavanaugh other than their families knew each other. Nobody asked her the extent of her interactions with Kavanaugh outside of her accusation.

              “when she submitted to a polygraph”

              I take it you didn’t bother to read up on her polygraph. Nobody would bring it up if they had. It was one of the most laughable excursions into polygraphs of all time. Plus she refused to, or claimed she didn’t remember, acknowledge when and how her polygraph was completed.

              “Her honesty, openness, willingness to answer all the questions, willingness to acknowledge the weakness of her memory.”

              Like lying about her fear to fly? Forgetting events that happened even a month ago?

              Sorry, you’re just not convincing anybody who isn’t already convinced.

            6. He’s rightfully pissed off. He’s the credible one. She can’t remember significant events properly from less than two months ago.

            7. Useful idiots on both sides hear what they want to hear and draw the expected conclusions, all the while being urged on by those for whom truth couldn’t be less important.

            8. Not so much. I thought Ford was credible at first, but her convenient memory lapses, not remembering a date or even the year, along with the fact of her either lying about or being kept out of the loop by lying attorneys in regard to her being scared of flying. None of the people named as witnesses remember her story, not even her friend.
              So, we’re left with her being mentally ill, which I think is true to some extent, or being used as a lying goat by democrats. Her past of sexual promiscuity and alcoholism was scrubbed prior to her being outed by Feinstein. I don’t think an honest person would have done that deed.
              Unless that greaseball Avenatti is on here, I doubt anyone would go to court with such a witness. The female who questioned her, who has worked for both parties, brought up a whole series of reasons she doesn’t believe Ford in a five page memo. Ford is just too rehearsed. The story about the two front doors on her house was false, for example, but she was so very earnest while presenting a false story! The investigation can easily take up where the last left off, and in only a few days, we shall know. I’m sure, judging by the conspiring leftists who arranged this circus, that nothing would enough. They want Kavanaugh destroyed, his wife destroyed, his children destroyed, and his life ruined forever as a warning.
              The fbi investigations into democrat conspiracy could be interesting. We’ll see.

            9. You mean willingness to admit she would lie – fear of flying – to avoid having to travel to DC to testify?
              As valor-thief Blumenthat said – lie in one thing, lie in the rest.
              How about, she can’t remember recent details about her exposing of this event, from three decades ago?
              Bad recent memory – even worse long term memories.
              And how about the unasked question of what was in her social media accounts, that needed to be erased?
              They have her in a picture at an anti-Trump rally.
              She’s lying, or has fit an event into becoming one against someone, who didn’t do it.
              Partisan political hack.

        2. Great new parody account–you sound just like a lefty idiot.

          1. Sounds a bit like happy chandler.
            He hasn’t been around lately.
            Think before this one he was going by DJK

        3. the truth of a well sourced claim of attempted rape

          LOL at this goonfiction. If by “well-sourced,” you mean, “no corroboration in witnesses, dates, or places,” you’re probably correct there.

          Pray tell, what exactly makes the claim “well-sourced,” besides the use of pseudoscientific memory repression therapy?

        4. It looks like you caught at least 3 with that one.

          1. For once I agree with Tulpa.

            +3.

  6. The ACLU Now Opposes Religious Freedom Because Christians Need It
    The Sometimes Civil Liberties Union
    Robby Soave Jun. 29, 2015 9:01 am

    The American Civil Liberties Union has formally reversed its support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signaling that the organization is no longer interested in mounting an ideologically consistent defense of all people of faith. It’s a disappointing retreat on principles for the ACLU, and the organization’s explanation suggests that a singular disdain for Christian belief is the reason

    1. Do you think Robby could cut it as a hair dresser? Because his writing is absolute shit. It was modestly tolerable when he had a shred of credibility and/or principle. Since he gave those up, hair seems like the only thing he’s got going for him.

    2. The ACLU is only interested in remaking the US into it’s own image of Progtopia. This vision is inconsistent with freedom of speech, or religion.

  7. You mean the ACLU didn’t oppose him before now? That’s the only surprising part of this story.

  8. Former board member Wendy Kaminer has expressed serious concerns that the ACLU is backpedaling on some of its foundational free speech commitments in cases where the speech in questions is offensive to the progressive left.

    As a left-libertarian, I think it’s a positive development that the ACLU is taking a more intersectional approach to free speech. Just as progressives are moving toward the Koch / Reason position on immigration, we libertarians need to embrace the progressive view on the First Amendment. Not only is it the right thing to do, it will strengthen the progressive / libertarian alliance going forward.

    See Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky’s piece Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America for an illuminating discussion of the dangers of free speech absolutism.

    1. (Needless to say, I agree with the ACLU on Kavanaugh.)

      #CancelKavanaugh
      #SaveRoe
      #OverturnHeller

    2. Some of your better work.

      1. When it’s meant to be parody and is instead scary; it’s like watching the best kind of horror movie, those based on true stories.

        1. And people here often don’t understand why I say we need McCarthyism back.

    3. Let me translate OBL’s comment to plain English:

      1. The ACLU should support more limits on free speech based on gender identity, racial identity, combinations thereof, etc., as defined by those in power, with the government punishing people for saying things that are currently considered free speech. Instead of Congress shall make no law limiting free speech, Congress shall pass many laws limiting free speech, based on an “intersectional approach” to the issue, rather than going by the actual text and context. The government should restrict our speech more, so we have less freedom.

      2. Libertarians, who favor a smaller, more decentralized government with less control over our lives, should be allied with progressives, who favor a powerful centralized government run largely by left-wing technocrats and bureaucrats, with more control over our lives.

      OBL, at what point does the government *stop* restricting free speech under the “intersectional approach”? It seems arbitrary and undefined, subject to the choices of progressives, rather than like the current relatively well-defined limited restrictions on free speech.

      I can only conclude that you think censoring and punishing speech that is offensive to the progressive Left is more important and greater than my right to free speech.

      1. It sounds so awful in your translation!

        You should know, however, that OBL is a masterful satirist and his utterances are art.

        1. “Art”

        2. For satire to succeed it can’t be more timid than that which it satirizes.

          If satire was being attempted, it was failed art.

    4. Is the First Amendment too broad?

      If it is then there is an amendment process built into the Constitution. I invite you to take the legal route and avoid practicing lawfare by advocating that scotus read things into the Constitution that are not there.

  9. Kavanaugh lied his ass off multiple times in that supposed “fact finding” sham of a hearing. His testimony was so appalling to people who knew the truth that they called into TV shows and contacted the authorities to sound the alarm. These are Republicans in case you wanted to dismiss their testimony on partisanship. These are people who know the facts and the truth and they say Kavanaugh is a liar. But we don’t even need these witnesses to know Kavanaugh is a liar under oath. We have are own eyes, ears and brain and I dare one of you to tell me “Devil’s Triangle” is a drinking game or “broofing” is farting. Blatant lying is disqualifying full stop. Nothing else needs to be said.

    1. Nothing else needs to be said.

      Agreed. You have succinctly proven yourself a hyperventilating idiot beyond a reasonable doubt in a single post. Congrats!

      1. Kavanaugh destroyed his own credibility. It’s actually a big deal when anyone lies under oath and it’s especially appalling when you lie to confuse people who are trying to determine whether a someone has been sexually assaulted.

        1. WTH was he supposed to do, be honest about 1982 drinking in a modern age? Then he’d be crucified for something else. This is exactly what his opponents wanted. That Senators caved at all is disgusting. Due process just got thrown over a barrel and gang raped by the very people who claim to be against such atrocities.

          1. “Due process just got thrown over a barrel and gang raped by the very people who claim to be against such atrocities.”

            I must stand and applaud this line.
            Bravo!

    2. Fucking liar.

    3. We have are own eyes, ears and brain and I dare one of you to tell me “Devil’s Triangle” is a drinking game or “broofing” is farting

      Citation needed, especially on the brain part.

    4. “Blatant lying is disqualifying full stop”

      But your case centers on your assertions, so it isn’t really blatant lying so much as your assertion that he is lying.

      When you do things like that, it makes it clear that you aren’t being honest about Kavanaugh and don’t have any crediblity, as you say.

      Or, do your standards not apply to you?

      1. Oh look, you’re asserting that he’s not being honest. I guess you don’t have any credibility either.

        Jfc stop masturbating all over the comments section.

        1. “Oh look, you’re asserting that he’s not being honest. I guess you don’t have any credibility either.”

          AKSHILLY, I was asking a question. You know, that thing that has “?” that at the end.

          If you were a better reader, you’d see the entire post was simpy a restatement of his position, and only a crybaby who I have repeatedly kicked around would think it said “you’re asserting that he’s not being honest.”

          It would take an exceptionally poor level of reading comprehension to arrive at the conclusion that I asserted anything other than that his position was contradictory to his own behavior.

          Which is why you arrived there.

          “Jfc stop masturbating all over the comments section.”

          Or what? You’ll whine more and make more posts that show you’re still upset at how I constantly slap the shit out of you?

          1. If you were a better reader, you’d see the entire post was simpy a restatement of his position, and only a crybaby who I have repeatedly kicked around would think it said “you’re asserting that he’s not being honest.”

            1. It’s fun when you prove my point for me.

            2. “AKSHILLY, I was asking a question”

              Cathy, in a effort to avoid looking like a shitty reader, forgets that quoted part, and instead looks like a moron again.

              Please Cathy, stop making it so easy to point out how stupid you are.

              1. You see that total silence from Cathy? It means the guy running the Cathy sock realizes he fucked up again and fled because of it.

                1. Lol, no, it means your first response was so lame I didn’t bother answering you. I didn’t forget that you claimed to be asking a question. Your little idea about anything anyone says being merely an assertion had nothing to do with your question of whether Ordinary Person was holding himself to his own standards. It wasn’t his own standard to claim, in effect, that causal claims are all lies because any statements about causal antecedents can only ever be mere assertions rather than facts about the world. That’s just some rhetorical bullshit you made up.

                  The jerk store called.

                  1. “Your little idea about anything anyone says being merely an assertion”

                    Hi I’m Cathy and I prove I can’t read by openly stating it like I did here.

                    ” had nothing to do with your question of whether Ordinary Person was holding himself to his own standards”

                    Hi I’m Cathy and your motivations are what I say they are!!! I can too read!!!

                    ” I didn’t forget that you claimed to be asking a question”

                    Hi I’m Cathy and I DID forget!!! I just said “your question of whether Ordinary Person was holding himself to his own standards”. AFTER I SAID ” I didn’t forget that you claimed to be asking a question”. I ADMITTED IT WAS A QUESTION!!!

                    And, even though your post ends with “Or, do your standards not apply to you?” I’m so stupid that I actually made a fool of myself saying ” you claimed to be asking a question” !!! I don’t know what a question is!!!

                    lolollollololol

                    1. Face it Cathy, you fucked up, and then made it worse, and gave me another opportunity to point out that you’re an imbecile. Your post ISN’T EVEN INTERNALLY CONSISTENT!!

                      THAT is how pissed you are at getting kicked around again!

                      ahahahahahahahaha!!!!

                    2. Hey, you’re finally honest for once, that’s big of you to admit you were totally wrong and pissed off that you made a fool of yourself.

                    3. “TuIpa|10.1.18 @ 3:03PM|#”

                      “Cathy L|10.1.18 @ 3:06PM|#”

                      That’s pretty weirdly obsessive of you Cathy, that’s a random post in the middle of a thread and you’re sitting there waiting on it, all because I keep pointing out how stupid all of your posts are. It’s pretty obvious you were parked on it hitting refresh like a creepy stalker. Really really creepy of you Cathy.

                      Please don’t be so creepy, thanks.

                    4. You know Cathy is sitting there wondering how long to wait before posting so as not to look like a creepy pedophile and a stalker.

                      Unfortunately, you’re stuck being a pedophile Cathy. Sorry, you did that by arguing at length that you should be allowed to fuck a 4 year old.

                    5. Sorry you’re stuck being a pathological liar.

                    6. lolol I love how obviously upset you are Cathy!

                      But you never should have creepily stalked me after you already admitted to be a kid fucker.

                      And I mean, how pathetic are you that you parked on that post hitting refresh?

                      Pretty pathetic, you sad pedophile.

                    7. “Cathy L|10.1.18 @ 3:06PM|#

                      Sure.”

                      Considering that you fully admitted I was right about everything I said when you made that post I quoted, I should probably cut you some slack…

                      But you’re an admitted pedophile… so I can’t. Sorry, Creepy Cathy.

        2. As usual, Cathy L adds nothing to the comment section.

          1. She comes at me all the time and I point out how stupid she is and then she runs away.

            Her obsession with me is pretty weird and desperate to be honest.

    5. “Broofing” is a term I have never heard before. What do you think it means?

      I have heard the term “devil’s triangle”, and it seems to mean a menage a trois, although I doubt a high school student is getting any sex, much less kinky sex.

      How is drinking beer by a high school student justification for eternal castigation?

      1. Broofing

        The action of bro-ing out with 40s on a roof.

        1. That urban dictionary entry is dated October, 2010. Was Kavanaugh prescient by 20 years?

      2. Kavanaugh lied about his drinking so that he could discredit the accusers. Drinking in high school is not the central issue. It’s the federal statute that criminalizes lying. It’s the character of Kavanaugh that is at issue. His honesty is at issue.

        1. Very Ordinary Person, what was his lie about drinking and how do you know it was a lie? Please give me evidence, not just your claim. Of course, you have no evidence.

          1. Ford said he was drunk. Judge said in a book he was drunk. His yearbook describes him as a drunk. He describes himself as a drunk. Multiple classmates at Yale describe him as a habitual and aggressive drunk. At some point, the repetition makes it evidence.

            1. “Judge said in a book he was drunk”

              You’re a fucking liar.

            2. Kavanaugh admitted to drinking. What was the lie?

      3. >>>although I doubt a high school student is getting any sex, much less kinky sex.

        my public high school in NJ in the 80s had weekly parties just like those … remembering for a friend.

        1. Evidently I was born too soon. And too nerdy.

          1. i was le roi de nerds … parties happened is all – no assault claims levied.

            1. Just wait till you get nominated for the Supreme Court.

      4. High school boys like to talk big about sex.

        Shocked.

    6. Please explain these lies.

      1. Your list of “lies” is blank.

    7. It’s “boofing”, not “broofing”. Obviously, you are a blatant liar and you should be disqualified from commenting on this board. Nothing else needs to be said.

    8. I’ve asked this from a few idiots… but which lies are you specifically referring to?

    9. Is Ordinary Person really Hihn?

    10. people who knew the truth

      And who is this? What we have is hearsay of the highest order. She couldn’t even provide corroborative evidence (which is weak, regardless) because the named witnesses denied they were present or saw anything.

    11. full stop

      You are not a serious person.

    12. I’m not personally familiar with “Devil’s Triangle” as the name of a drinking game, but it’s not uncommon for words to have multiple uses.

      For instance, “Asshole” is both the name of a drinking game and an apt description of you.

  10. To be sure, the only surprising revelation here is Robby’s surprise.

  11. “Guilty until proven innocent!” — ACLU

  12. The claim that a “credible allegation” alone, as opposed to a truthful one, should disqualify someone from anything is shocking and appalling, especially coming from an organization that claims to be committed to civil rights. Lots of untrue things can be “credible”.

    1. It’s an entirely credible allegation that Robby Soave has been anally raping toddlers. I mean, Robby has never said he hasn’t anally raped toddlers, so obviously it’s a well-sourced claim and a credibly accused toddler rapist like him should not be allowed to write and post articles at a Libertarian publication, especially now that the Libertarian Party has adopted Presumption of Guilt as a plank in its platform.

      1. Any denial from Robby that he doesn’t rape toddlers is victim blaming. Tony too.

  13. What am I missing?

    How is the allegation (or allegations) of sexual misconduct credible? Ford’s memory is “recovered” and is contradicted by all of her alleged witnesses. Ramirez only made her allegations after six days of “consultation” with her lawyers. Swetnik has no credibility whatever. All of the allegations are decades old. All of the “victims” are partisan-hack leftists. It seems to be a requirement of leftist-Democrats to throw critical thinking to the wind.

    Ford strikes me as a neurotic basket case, and far from credible.

    The only conclusion I can draw is that the ACLU is uninterested in fairness, impartiality, or due process. Those three virtues are a requirement for an organization that pretends to adhere to civil liberties.

    1. You are not missing anything. “Credible” is a totally subjective term and is essentially meaningless. It is just a way for someone to say they believe somethign without having the courage to actually say so. And there is nothing credible about this accusation. If Ford’s accusation is credible, every accusaton short of those that violate the laws of nature is.

      1. These allegations seem as credible as the claims that Barack is a gay, Kenyan, Muslim, and possibly a space alien.

      2. I grew up in Chicago. I lived directly across the street from the Dotson family. The Dotsons had about six or seven kids, one of them was named Gary. I briefly romanced Gary’s older sister, Debbie. They moved to a poor suburb of Chicago.

        Gary Dotson was “credibly” accused of rape a few years after they moved to the suburb. He was tried and convicted of that rape and served more than a decade in Illinois’ max security prison. His “credible” accuser went on to marry and got religion. Her conscience was restored by Christ and she recanted her “credible” allegation and eventually Gary Dotson was released from prison, a very broken man who never recovered from his encounter with a credible rape conviction.

        The difference between Gary and Brett is the immense chasm of economic class.

        You can google “Gary Dotson” to read about it if you’re interested.

        1. The whole reliance on the term ‘credible allegation’ as opposed to making a statement on the truth of the allegation is insidious. Kavanaugh could prove his innocence and the allegation would still stictly speaking be “credible”. Something can be both credible and untrue.

          1. Stop among sense, John. You’ll confuse the rabble.

        2. Tragic story.
          Crowell should have been prosecuted for filing a false police report.

          1. I used to think the same way about Cromwell. I have softened my attitude over the years. She was 16 and terrified that her parents would discover that she had sex with her boyfriend, so she made up a rape story to bolster her “innocence”. Kinda sounds like Ford when I put it to words.

            At least she did come forward years later and recant. Too late for Gary. The damage was done.

            The lessons I took from witnessing Gary’s destruction are: any man can be falsely accused of rape; some women sometimes lie. Despite those things, I like women.

            1. She sure as hell waited a long time to come clean.

              She destroyed someone’s life, just like the Dems are doing with Kavanaugh.

              1. The difference is that she was a child when she destroyed somebody else’s life, Ford is 51. We expect better judgment of adults.

                1. As someone who has watched the left since trump was elected…. I don’t expect much of many adults.

                2. Every democrat on the judiciary committee should be immediately arrested and transported to GitMo. The End.

    2. Their motive is obvious the ACLU don’t want a Supreme Court with a majority of conservative/originalists on the Bench for the next 30/40 years since that would royally screw up their SJW agenda.

    3. Ford’s memory is “recovered” and is contradicted by all of her alleged witnesses.

      No one is claiming Ford’s memory is “recovered.” Only Ramirez is allegedly in that position.

      1. Google “Ford’s memory recovered”. Some are “credibly” claiming it.

        1. No, Cathy prefers being wrong about easily verifiable facts.

        2. She all but said it was recovered herself. Not in so many words, but this is what the original Washington Post article said. Sound’s like she received it to me.

          “Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.

      2. I’m claiming Frod’s Memory is recovered. Which is ‘credible’.

    4. Ecoli

      You are correct. I had hoped that Libertarianism was a safe place from the idiotic crap that is going on. Both parties have left me in the past. Is that going to happen with libertarians also?

      I’m not surprised about the ACLU. It long ago left the true civil liberties goal for a love of far left politics. True Libertarianism should have zero to do with anything the ACLU does.

      I have no idea if Kavanaugh molested anyone or drank heavier than he admits. What I do know is that any fair minded person would give his accuser little credibility based on how much detail she remembers. That fair minded person, if honest, would also know that if Kavanaugh was an outspoken supporter of choice and thought that Roe v Wade was great Law that he would be praised by the left and would skate through confirmation. The problem is that there is too much dishonest in politics.

      But I have another reason why the democrats should let the confirmation go through. If this tactic works for the democrats, it is certain that the far right will use this in the future to stop a more liberal choice. Or maybe it won’t even need to be a Supreme Court nominee. Maybe it will be Elizabeth Warren running against Trump when some toothless dude named Billy Bob will say that she grabbed his crotch at a bar in Boston in the 80s.

      1. This sort of thing only works against Republicans, though. The Democrats will circle the wagons around their accused buddy, like they did with Bill Clinton, and the media will go full on opposition research attack mode on any accusers. Hell, they do that with people who even ask Democrats inconvenient questions, like Joe the plumber.

        1. Paulpemb, I see your point. It is often why moderates like me end up voting for the right over the left, at least sometimes. I’m offended by the massive dishonesty of the left. They embrace Hillary even with her appalling record. They embrace the so-called anti fascists that employ fascist tactics. They complain about Kavanaugh that is accused of a crime from a questionable accuser, but ignore the Beto fool and Ellison’s behavior that has much better corroboration. So while I am no fan of the far right in this country, they scare me much less than the far left. They are both wrong, but the far left is wrong and evil.

  14. “…if the organization had not done so much recently that makes it appear like it’s mutating into a generic progressive organization.”

    Since we seem to be all about parsing works like “credible” lately, how about the meaning of “makes it appear like it’s mutating…?”
    The ACLU has not stood for actual civil liberties at least since the Skokie march.

  15. Fuck the ACLU and fuck you Rico, you swishy little Obamafag.

  16. If Trump nominated Bill Clinton for SCOTUS, would Feinstein and company be asking that Juanita Broaddrick get to testify about her rape allegations? Or Kathleen Willey and her accusation that Clinton of groping her without consent? Or Paula Jones, who accused Clinton of exposing himself to her as well as sexually harassing her. How about Monica Lewinsky, the poor intern whom he most definitely used an abuse-of-power boss/employee relationship to sexually abuse the poor intern? And then lied about it?

    Would any of that be enough to get Democrats to deny his position on SCOTUS?

    Would the fact that Trump nominating him be enough to cause Democrats to break down like those androids in Star Trek? “Bill Clinton is our hero, but Trump must be opposed. But if we oppose Bill, we would keep our hero off SCOTUS…#believeher but it’s Bill! Error, error, does not compute…arggghhhh”

    Their heads would be spinning so hard from the cognitive dissonance they’d look like cats with buttered toast strapped to their backs dropped from a short height…

    1. That scenario (Trump nominating Bill) is so delicious I almost wish he would. Almost everything Hillary did was normal corrupt politics, but standing up for Bill when she knew he was a serial rapist, slandering and libeling all his victims, that was beyond the pale, and I wil never forgive her for that. It was not politics as usual.

      1. “”slandering and libeling all his victims, that was beyond the pale, and I wil never forgive her for that”‘

        Yet she’s the “most qualified” ever.

        It really shows a willingness to look the other way at such conduct.

      2. Well, selling Mishel tech to the Chinese, and taking over a hundred million do,Lars from Russia for,our uranium is actually high treason, but……..

    2. If I was Trump, when Ginsberg finally kicks off I would nominate Connie Rice. Just to see the Dems scream and pull out their hair while trying to figure out how to attack a black lesbian woman.

      1. I’ve been wanting Sec. Rice to run for POTUS.

      2. My suspicion is that they would attack her with racist, homophobic, and sexist slurs. Sure, they are strongly against all of that, but only when its either directed toward an entire group or, more personally, against one of their own.

        If you have a credible (there’s that word against) membership on their team however, you are cleared to make racist or homophobic or sexist comments against someone who is clearly NOT on the right side.

        I seem to recall racist comments against Clarence Thomas, homophobic ones against Peter Thiel, and a tons and tons of sexist comments against Sarah Palin. All of that was cool because those people were on the wrong side.

        1. De ocrats are the most homophobic, racist, anti feminist people in all of time and space.

        2. Good points.

      3. You mean the same democrats who openly call her aunt jamaima and a race traitor?

  17. “We oppose him in light of the credible allegations of sexual assault against him.”

    Credible in that such accusations could happen just that there’s not a particle of evidence link them to Kavanaugh.
    For an organization that’s full of lawyers and litigates all the time just what the fuck is this supposed to mean?

  18. What credible allegations? All I’ve seen so far is a politically-motivated smear campaign.

  19. By using the ACLU definition of “credible” we must conclude that there is no person anywhere in the world who they would accept for this position.

    1. Except Bill Clinton. He’s been cleared.

  20. light of the credible allegations of sexual assault against him

    So… things like due process and minimum standards of evidence are no longer cool ideas to the hepcats at the ACLU I see.

  21. Anyone else alive during the 1980’s want to call bullshit on his testimony? The guy flat out perjured himself, regardless of what you think about the assault claims. The ralph club was because he had a weak stomach et al. PUHLEEZ do you really think we are that stupid.

    1. can there be perjury about “the ralph club”?

    2. And Ford perjured herself when she said that she “couldn’t recall” whether she gave her therapy notes to a Washington Post reporter.

      She remembers that perfectly damn well, and knows whether the answer is yes or no.

      1. I’m pretty sure you could nail her on the “fear of flying” bit, too, given her frequent flyer miles.

    3. Only the raving left would think the amount of beer one drank in college three decades ago to be relevant.

      To hell with perjury on this. The only appropriate response when asked about drinking habits in that hearing was ‘go to hell Senator, you shameless hack’. Anything less then that was just being polite.

    4. “I drank beer with my friends,” he said. “Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out,” he said.

      How is that a denial of drinking? In fact it is consistent with having a weak stomach and not being able to drink to the point of blacking out.

    5. Even Megyn Kelly get it…..

      https://bit.ly/2xRpPKr

    6. Tom… Do you know what a lie actually is? Having a weak stomach can be a factor in puking. Kavanaugh never said he didn’t puke. God damn are you liberals desperate.

  22. assholes keep using “credible” like they know what it means

  23. So ‘Associate Editor for Reason’ is now equivalent to internet troll.

    This comparison will stand until Robby or one of the other completely partisan editors takes the time to explain why they think ‘credible’ is equivalent to ‘significant’.

    1. He’s basically Shikha for this topic.

  24. I have a “credible accusation” of my own. Progressives are con artists who prey on the general public’s natural sympathy for possible assault victims in order to further their agenda.

    1. So Prof. Ford lied?

      1. She either lied or is mistaken. It really does not matter which. Her claim is not something that can ever be proven with sufficient clarity to hold against someone.

        The idea that Ford is somehow unlikely to lie by virtue of her being a woman is one of the most idiotic ideas put forth during all this.

        1. What possible reason do you have to accuse her of lying or being mistaken? Other than the (R) beside the name of the douchefuck you’re defending?

          You’re not in a tenable position here.

          1. “What possible reason do you have to accuse her of lying or being mistaken? ”

            The time that has passed.

          2. “You’re not in a tenable position here”

            “Her memory is unassailable after 30+ years” is tenable?

            Come the fuck on.

          3. The burden of proof is on the accuser. You’re making an argument from ignorance by assuming her words to be true until proven false.

            1. Too many concepts that Tony flatly will never understand.

              But I appreciate it.

              1. Tony is the Fervent Fallacy Fellator.

            2. Berty made some accusations himself

              1. But I forget the original text of the maxim: innocent until proven guilty unless you’re a Clinton, in which you’re probably also a lizard in human skin.

                1. ok, then, start calling for some FBI investigations.

          4. The fact that her memory is full of very convenient holes.

            Beyond that, she clearly wasn’t truthful when she said she feared flying, when she claimed to not knew who she gave her therapist notes to, the timeframe about her house remodel and the pressing need for multiple front doors.

          5. Tony|10.1.18 @ 12:31PM|#
            “What possible reason do you have to accuse her of lying or being mistaken? Other than the (R) beside the name of the douchefuck you’re defending?”
            Oh, gee. Maybe it might have something to do with TDS. Just a guess on my part

            “You’re not in a tenable position here.”
            You’re a laugh riot.

            1. So, Tony, having do you concede the point?

              No, I didn’t think so.

      2. The most likely explanation is that everyone is telling the truth as they remember it. What actually happened will never be known.

        1. I think Ford is consciously lying.
          Check out ProfMJCleveland’s twitter feed for her analysis:

          https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland

            1. Prof Margot Cleveland’s twitter feed.
              She lays out her argument in some detail there.
              How Ford’s story has changed over time depending on who she was recounting it to and when she was in danger of being refuted.

              1. Here’s a link to the memo, created by Rachel Mitchell – the Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor brought in by the Republicans to question Ford.
                http://apps.washingtonpost.com…..ysis/3221/

          1. I think there’s not much question that she lied about her fear of flying. And it wasn’t even a necessary lie, just convenient.

        2. That is certainly possible. It is possible she made it up or she was assualted and decided to pin in on Kavanaugh to do her duty for the cause. There is no way to know. It is why taking such allegations seriously is idiotic.

          1. If this “house” actually exists and the “party” actually happened eventually those details will be forthcoming. The investigation won’t stop even if Kavanaugh is confirmed.

            I’m betting we’ll be adding the Ford/sexual assault claim to the Duke/LaCrosse and Jackie/Rolling Stone debacles.

          2. I doubt she was ever actually assaulted.
            I think this entire story is fantasy, which she may have convinced herself of, born of her desire to be a victim – the progressive ideal – to give her life and existential shittiness meaning.

            1. I’d like to see her grades over time. But I bet that information would be “too personal” and irrelevant to substantiating the assault.

              Also, if she really wanted to convince doubters, she would release her medical records associated with all psychological therapy that she has had. Her reputation is tarnished with a good portion of the population, and supposedly she has revealed her worst trauma in her life. So why not go whole hog and lay it all out?

        3. It’s possible that she thinks she remembered things a certain way. So if that’s the case, she deserves to be criticized for her utter lack of introspection. Someone with integrity would notice the contradictions and total lack of corroborating facts and start to seriously second-guess themselves. “Hmm, maybe my memory is faultier than I thought and I should stop this charade before it goes too far”

          1. I bet reading her therapist’s notes would be very revealing.

            I don’t know if a therapist’s notes can be subpoened or not though.

      3. Currently it stands 4 to 1 against her on the allegations of Kav’s presence.

        4 to 1…

        Are you going to stop crucifying the convenient penis now?

        1. It would be fascinating how quickly a right-wing lie becomes fact to you morons, if it weren’t so destructive to rational thought.

          1. Sticking with Team Blue… Rgr.

          2. rational thought

            This is not a concept with which you are familiar.

      4. No, Tony, all of the witnesses and facts that contradicted her are wrong. She is the standard for all that is pure and true in the world and anything that seems to defy her is evil and must be destroyed.

        1. If your politics lean left she is telling the truth.

          If your politics lean right she’s lying.

          That’s the only standard.

          1. Of you believe in the necessity of verifiable information… Where do you stand. This isn’t a question on god. Her best friend said she didn’t even know kavanaugh nor was at a party with him. Literally everyone is refusing Ford. When can we start saying she’s wrong?

            1. You can say she’s wrong right now, provided you:

              * aren’t a politician of a mainstream party,
              * do not depend on staying employed as an educator
              * you are not an employee of some mainstream company or corporation,
              * are able to accept the risk that you or family may be subjected to massive social media attack

              Otherwise,

              “.. you came to the wrong town at the wrong time my friend. “

        2. Lie. Stop lying.

          1. Tony|10.1.18 @ 12:32PM|#
            “Lie. Stop lying.”

            Poor Tony. Stick your fingers in your ears and scream “I CAN”T HEAR YOU!”
            It’ll make you seem a bit more mature.

      5. I believe she is lying about everything. I believe she is a vile political nutjob who is sacrificing her family’s well being and destroying someone elses life for what she considers to be a ‘higher good’.
        Her behavior has been irrational, her claims laughably unsupported, and the only reason she has had her 15 minutes is because the GOP has been cucked for so long they don’t know how else to act.

        1. Surely she was part of a Clinton conspiracy too.

        2. The fact she scrubbed her social media is a huge red flag.

          1. BINGO!

      6. Women lie. Men die.

      7. “”So Prof. Ford lied?”‘

        Four people who she gave as witnesses did not back her story. Are they saying she lying?

  25. If we’re talking credible plus corroborating evidence = Keith Ellison

    1. The irony, it burns!

      In light of the current Kavanaugh allegations, which Democrat’s say could not possibly be made up, and that all women must be believed even without even the flimsiest of evidence…

      We have here Kieth Ellison, the deputy chair of the DNC, former Congressman from Minnesota is also running for Minnesota AG spot. His ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan, a Sierra Club activist and Ellison’s ex-girlfriend, accused the Minnesota Democrat of emotionally and physically abusing her during their relationship.

      Monahan published a November 2017 medical document on Sept. 19 showing she told her doctor about alleged “emotional and physical abuse” and named Ellison as the alleged abuser.

      Ellison did not challenge the document’s authenticity during Friday’s debate but claimed it came “as she was putting together the allegation she made two days before the primary.”

      Ellison’s primary didn’t take place until nine months after Monahan told her doctor about the alleged abuse.

      Ellison also could not guarantee Friday that more accusers won’t come forward, suggesting women may “cook up” allegations because of the “current political environment.”

      The DNC, where Ellison is the deputy chair, originally said on Aug. 14 that it would be “reviewing” the allegations but DNC Chair Tom Perez later deferred to the DFL’s investigation.

  26. This song never made any sense until I watched the video.

  27. “As a nonpartisan organization, the ACLU …”

    That’s funny. They haven’t been nonpartisan in well over 20 years and each year they step further and further into a proggy fantasy world.

  28. If the ACLU had come out 2 months ago and said they didn’t like him on 4th Amendment grounds-an actual concern for civil liberties-this wouldn’t be so laughable.

    1. Well given their real agenda [limitations of free speech per relative definition of “offensive” and their total opposition to Second Amendment rights, why would they want to support the Fourth Amendment? The government is going to need a lot of free reign in order to go after those who violate the first two.

  29. All “credible” seems to mean is that the observer can discern no tells that the accuser is not telling the the truth. That could mean that the accuser is telling the truth, or that the accuser has a faulty memory but has convinced themselves that what they are saying is the truth, the accuser has a sociopathic ability to lie, or the observer is a bad judge of character.

    Without evidence, you cannot tell which of these options might be the best explanation. You cannot make a decision in the affirmative based solely on “credible”.

    1. The Duke Lacrosse team accuser was credible to many.

      Until she admitted it was a lie.

      1. Actually not the cops who did the initial investigation, they concluded nothing had happened.

        It was Mike Nifong, the district attorney, who dismissed the cop’s reports seeing it as his chance to use it to run for reelection and then things snowballed from there.

        1. Refresh my memory, is Nifong a Democrat?

          1. That’s a 200 jeopardy question

  30. “As a nonpartisan organization, the ACLU…”

    LOL@nonpartison

  31. If the ACLU spokesman had said “a credible allegation of sexual assault”, I would have been willing to believe they were genuinely concerned.

    But “credible allegations”? There is only one — Ford’s. The gang rape allegations are about as credible as Birtherism and the “crisis actor” theory.

    1. The gang rape stuff is near McMartin preschool levels of absurd.

  32. The Daily Mail is reporting that a sixth victim has come forward and is claiming to have been gang raped by Kavanaugh.

    She signed her accusation, Jane Doe. Seems credible. To Kamala Harris.

    1. Her accusation reads like it was written by OBL, our resident satirist.

    2. We are up to six now?

      1. That would be new new fifth accuser, the old fifth accuser had an attack of conscience and recanted.

    3. Wasn’t this the letter that said kavanaugh forced her into oral sex while her mouth was covered by kavanaughs friend in the back seat? Who needs physics.

  33. It’s not defensible at all.

    The ACLU is now apparently against one of the most basic civil liberties, the presumption of innocence.

    What a joke.

  34. That this supposed assault is the biggest story in the country for the last three weeks should tell you that politics at the national level is not worth your time.

    Regardless of what actually happened, it’s fair to say that congress oversees problems that have effects that are far more damaging than a sexual assault that may have occurred more than 3 decades ago.

    Did congress spend this much time debating the 20 year war in Afghanistan?

  35. As a nonpartisan organization

    Sure…

    “We oppose him in light of the credible allegations of sexual assault against him.”

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  36. Perhaps the longest lasting impact of the Trump presidency will be how many self-professed “civil libertarians” and organizations who self-style themselves as such have thoroughly discredited themselves.

  37. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBIMU__nmM

    Pretty much covers the credibility of Ford’s accusation.

  38. “”We oppose him in light of the credible allegations of sexual assault against him.”

    TRANSLATION: We believe allegations instead of proof and solid evidence.
    Its the ACLU way.

  39. As of yet, there is no evidence that corroborates Ford’s story, and other alleged attendees of the party have failed to back up her account. But Kavanaugh’s evasive and misleading statements about his teenage drinking have made it easier to believe that he is hiding something.

    Sure. I can go with that. But still – there are no credible allegations against him. And really, this is just one more strike against the ACLU which has abandoned its founding principles for social justice. They should go ahead and change there name so no one is confused that they might be related to the group that fought for individual liberty for so long.

    And another thing – his ‘evasive and misleading’ statements seem to be because he misremembers the state of the law 35 years ago and some stupid shit kids say. Because he’s expected to have a razor sharp memory of a throw-away time of his life. But its OK that Ford, et al, can only remember ‘for sure’ that he did something bad to them – not when or where exactly?

    1. As of yet, there is no evidence that corroborates Ford’s story, and other alleged attendees of the party have failed to back up her account.

      . . .

      Thus I can understand why the ACLU would make an exception in this case

      I can’t. I can’t understand why you would understand. You even come out and say that there’s no corroborating evidence yet you insist that the allegations are ‘convincing’.

      ?there is good reason to be concerned about Kavanaugh’s character,

      Except that that is not why the ACLU is opposing him. They aren’t concerned his ‘evasions’ are indicative of bad character, they’re saying that they ‘believe her’. Despite there being no evidence to support that position.

      1. But it would be easier to accept the ACLU’s anti-Kavanaugh stance as a one-off move if the organization had not done so much recently that makes it appear like it’s mutating into a generic progressive organization.

        If it had not become a progressive organization it would not have put out this release in the first place. a) It would have not felt the need to virtue signal and, b) it would have stuck to the limits of it mission.

      2. Because this article is one of a long line of disgraceful clickbait of the type the enquirer or ny post would be proud of. Your career prospects are bright, Robby, as long as it’s all about the clicks.

  40. If there’s one reason to reject Kavanaugh as a SCJ its because, as a high-schooler – he kept a fucking calendar. What a douche.

  41. A credible accusation is where all the other witnesses say it never happened as alleged?

  42. Is this really all that surprising?

    Let’s remember that the ACLU also recently abandoned Free Speech as a guiding principle, saying it needed to be weighted against peoples’ delicate feelings: http://online.wsj.com/public/r…..21ACLU.pdf
    “ACLU Case Selection Guidelines: Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities”

  43. Very, VERY disappointed in the ACLU.

    They SHOULD’VE opposed him for helping to write the PATRIOT Act and his decisions supporting it.

    (All this sexual assault bullshit is going to destroy the #MeToo nonsense. Yaaaaayyyyy!)

  44. Huh. It seems the ACLU has found a new meaning for credible that means, ‘has no supporting evidence’, and that holds up when the accuser’s cited witnesses all contradict her inconsistent testimony.

    1. Exactly this. I feel like the world has gone mad. I’m sincerely worried for our country. Where have all the adults gone???

  45. Welcome to the world of ‘Never Trump.’ A world Reason helped construct. Well done.

  46. “The ACLU has done so much to protect the civil liberties of all kinds of people. It would be a shame if it became just another left-of-center group, primarily interested in rights violations that affect those in good standing with intersectional progressivism. The decision to oppose Kavanaugh might be perfectly defensible on its own, but it certainly adds to this impression.”

    Yes, it has, and Yes, it does. This is, unfortunately, not new. While an attorney in Chicago, I resigned my ACLU membership long ago — perhaps the early 1980s? One of my chief benefactors in building my investment business was a nationally-known attorney associated with the ACLU. We discussed my decision. He urged me to explain to the ACLU why I’d done it and complain about what they’d done. He fully understood my upset. They continue to do the same sort of thing today.

    And, as much as I admire your reporting, Mr. Soave, I see NO reason to believe Blasey-Ford. Please tell me how the word “credible” is related to anything CBF emoted? Accusation is not evidence. Emotion is not truth.

  47. Herman: “As a non-partisan organization that takes its direction from the Democratic Party, the ACLU…..”

  48. This is no surprise. The ACLU board decided a while back to go full prog. You will look in vain for any defense of conservatives.

  49. The ACLU’s campaign to deny Kavanaugh a Supreme Court seat shows that they have become adjuncts of the Democratic Party. This is is consistent with their recent backtracking on constitutional rights. They talk about a “credible” accusation of sexual assault. What is the legal standard or consistent definition for “credible”? Are they using the Hirono definition, which is that Kavanaugh is conservative, therefore must be a rapist?

  50. “But it would be easier to accept the ACLU’s anti-Kavanaugh stance as a one-off move if the organization had not done so much recently that makes it appear like it’s mutating into a generic progressive organization. ”

    The ACLU is converged. Too Left for Alan Dershowitz.

    June 13, 2018
    Dershowitz: Final nail in the coffin of the ACLU
    By Rick Moran
    https://goo.gl/zc2dSN

    It was nice to see Robby recognize the obvious, and not try to shill the ACLU’s absurd “As a nonpartisan organization, the ACLU…”

    +1 Robby

  51. “about his teenage drinking have made it easier to believe that he is hiding something.”

    And you call this rag “reason”?

  52. “about his teenage drinking have made it easier to believe that he is hiding something.”

    And you call this rag “reason”?

  53. I do not dispute Dr. Ford had a traumatic encounter; however, I do not find her statements relative to it being Judge Kavanaugh credible.

    The fact is students of parochial schools and non parochial schools had almost no socialization. They stayed, and continue to stay, within their hierarchy.

    1. From what I gather, there is only a single point contact in this scenario: Chris Garrett. They “went out” but didn’t “date”. That could mean a whole spectrum of things, both today and back in 1982. He says he has nothing significant to say…

  54. The ACLU has now tossed innocent until proven guilty in the trash pile along with free speech rights. They need to rename themselves. Am I the only person holding out for actual evidence Kavanaugh did anything? I didnt find a shred of proof in anything Ford said. Not one thing that supported her story and Im a woman. You know, Trump wasnt my guy. But day by day, Im starting to feel sympathy for him, enough that I just might vote for him in 2020. Kavanaugh would not have been my pick if I were President but I am supporting him now! My favorite line from s columnist of late the democrats are such toads they can luck their own eye.

  55. #boycottclickbait

  56. If the ACLU was on the ballot in Flyover Nation, it would be lucky to get 5% of the vote.
    Having the ACLU oppose you is a mark of integrity.

  57. “Credible” Where and when did this actually happen? Early eighties ,late eighties? Fords own witness’s refute her claims.The ACLU has no credibility.

  58. “The decision to oppose Kavanaugh might be perfectly defensible on its own”

    Except the ACLU is not simply opposing him based on his rulings (both past and future), they are saying he is guilty without evidence. That he does not deserve the natural right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

    What happened to you, Rico?

  59. So the ACLU doesn’t know the difference between credible and incredible.

  60. So if the FBI comes back with nothing are they going to with-draw their objection? I guess we will see in a few days depending on which way it goes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.