AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Kavanaugh/Ford Hearing

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with what you're saying and in a perfect world, all politicians would follow through with what they promised in order to get elected. I have no doubt he did some dumbass shit in HS and college. To what degree his dumbassery stooped to will probably remain a mystery.

What concerns me more is his conduct since passing the bar and his record as a judge.

Yep, and is why I posed the question of should someone's past prevent them from holding certain positions if their record since then has been clean as well as work to correct/prevent the same thing from happening to others. Depending upon the infraction, I am willing to let some things slide. But, the way he has behaved himself, I have issues with. he's always presented himself as a privileged frat boy than anything else in his testimonies. The other questions I posed were about specific pieces that I felt the information was missing (what was Dr. Ford's level of intoxication at the parties) as well as to provide some contradictory info on why eyewitness accounts are often seem as problematic. Again, not to discredit her and excuse him. But, strictly more from a informational standpoint because I couldn't find where those points were brought up.

Kavanaugh shouldn't be on the bench, the minute all these allegations came up it should have been investigated further. Like I said in a previous post, I think some of these high level Federal and state positions should be investigated by the respective law enforcement entities (FBI and State marshalls)
 
It’s almost like her asking for an FBI investigation BEFORE she testified, in order to have some facts laid first was some kind of good idea or something?
 
It’s almost like her asking for an FBI investigation BEFORE she testified, in order to have some facts laid first was some kind of good idea or something?

No. What I mean is that if anyone is running for President, Senate/House or nomination of SCOTUS they should be deeply background checked before going forward. Why is it that both Presidential frontrunners in '16 had major security issues, yet were running for the highest position in the nation? The so-called "vetting" that the Dems and Reps do is BS.
 
My concern is finding out if he lied under oath. Not a very good precedent for a judge.

Yep, same thing when Clinton was on trial. Didn't care much about the whole Lewinsky thing. it was that he lied under oath that screwed him.
 
No. What I mean is that if anyone is running for President, Senate/House or nomination of SCOTUS they should be deeply background checked before going forward. Why is it that both Presidential frontrunners in '16 had major security issues, yet were running for the highest position in the nation? The so-called "vetting" that the Dems and Reps do is BS.
I didn’t quote you
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmberCutie
Facts?

Definitive date, time & location are all in question last I heard.
The pre testimony investigation didn’t happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: JickyJuly
What concerns me more is his conduct since passing the bar and his record as a judge.
Does this mean you're concerned about his record as a judge? Or that you're fine with it? Some of it is pretty ugly. On top of feeling that the prez is above the law, he's also shown himself to believe that those who are developmentally disabled (without putting any limit on it) do not deserve basic constitutional rights like the rest of us. It's weird. I'm angry about all of this rapey stuff. Really angry. But, when you start looking at his actual record, distracting everyone with rapey stuff seems pretty smart.
 
Does this mean you're concerned about his record as a judge? Or that you're fine with it? Some of it is pretty ugly. On top of feeling that the prez is above the law, he's also shown himself to believe that those who are developmentally disabled (without putting any limit on it) do not deserve basic constitutional rights like the rest of us. It's weird. I'm angry about all of this rapey stuff. Really angry. But, when you start looking at his actual record, distracting everyone with rapey stuff seems pretty smart.

Can you post some links of sources please? Not questioning what you're saying. But, am thinking might be good for being able to use the same source of info. Admittedly, I've also been pretty busy, and haven't had a chance to dig into his judicial history on rulings yet.

Thanks. :)
 
  • Helpful!
Reactions: JickyJuly
This month the Supreme Court is set to rule on if the President can pardon state crimes. This, combined with Kavs belief that a sitting president cannot be investigated, are why they were trying to rush this from the very beginning. If Trump could pardon state crimes then his kids and his cronies would be safe from the Muller investigation. That’s what this whole shit show is really all about.

@ForceTen
Here’s what she’s referring too.
 
Yep. The "forced abortion" headline is a little much (it didn't specify abortion alone), but his choices did line up with that happening. The people in the related case were compensated. 2 were abortions. Even if they exempt abortion, most of the people I know who are pro-life (actual people who live their religion. not sure if they line up with most of the "pro-life" voters, tbh) put equal value on disabled lives. They're going to lose some of the hardcore pro-life voters, centrists and libertarians as more people hear about his beliefs. They should really just let him keep spinning his tires loudly on this rape thing. That's fucking sad, but it's true. The rape thing might just be the best of it for damage control.

Ugh. My bad. Reading that article it did specify abortion. The one I read yesterday made it sound like he was just part of a panel. This one says he overturned the initial finding. Going to read some more and pipe down. Hehehe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ACFFAN69
Definitely important to read that, and all articles in their entirety. Headline is misleading but the contents are good and sourced back to the original case ruling. The abortions had already happened so Brett didn’t rule on that, just said disabled folks can’t make decisions about their medical procedures. Which is a pretty gross violation of bodily autonomy especially when it forces women into abortions they don’t want. Disgusting and archaic, just like forcing women to give birth when they don’t want to.

There’s a reason why the Repubs were withholding a nice chunk of his judical record from public eye. “This has been the first time a sitting President has exerted executive privilege under the Presidental Records Act in order to prevent documents from going to congress during a Supreme Court confirmation process.”
 
Definitely important to read that, and all articles in their entirety. Headline is misleading but the contents are good and sourced back to the original case ruling. The abortions had already happened so Brett didn’t rule on that, just said disabled folks can’t make decisions about their medical procedures. Which is a pretty gross violation of bodily autonomy especially when it forces women into abortions they don’t want. Disgusting and archaic, just like forcing women to give birth when they don’t want to.

I read through most of it, and in some ways I'm a bit conflicted by the decisions as I can kind of understand both sides of the cases. On one hand, you have the rights of a person to be able to decide what to do with their life and body. On the other hand, you have people whom have been legally deemed incompetent due to mental conditions and require assistance in basic living capacities. Thus, there is a concern for their welfare as well as their child.
In many states, there are laws in place where if a person lacks proper mental judgement and are unable to make coherent decisions about their well being, the "good intent" laws come into play. This allows emergency services to provide services to a person who needs medical attention, based on what a "reasonable person would want" in that situation. Admittedly, I don't know the full depth of the law for this, only for these instances. But, I could see an argument being made that extends beyond there. Not saying I agree with it, because I think anyone with all but the severest cases of mental incapacity could come to a decision on their health if given enough time and explanation when it comes to non-life threatening situations. It would have to be explained in a way they could understand it, of course. But, think it could realistically be explained.
In these abortion and sterilization cases, it was wrong to force them on the women. The other alternative of giving up for adoption would also be very difficult to explain to them as well. Not knowing enough about the cases, I'm only looking at it from an abortion/adoption stand. If these women did have enough mental capacity to care for, and raise the children, then that would have been the preferred direction to go.


There’s a reason why the Repubs were withholding a nice chunk of his judical record from public eye. “This has been the first time a sitting President has exerted executive privilege under the Presidental Records Act in order to prevent documents from going to congress during a Supreme Court confirmation process.”

Both parties are guilty of doing this shit. They're both corrupt as fuck.
 
I read through most of it, and in some ways I'm a bit conflicted by the decisions as I can kind of understand both sides of the cases. On one hand, you have the rights of a person to be able to decide what to do with their life and body. On the other hand, you have people whom have been legally deemed incompetent due to mental conditions and require assistance in basic living capacities. Thus, there is a concern for their welfare as well as their child.
In many states, there are laws in place where if a person lacks proper mental judgement and are unable to make coherent decisions about their well being, the "good intent" laws come into play. This allows emergency services to provide services to a person who needs medical attention, based on what a "reasonable person would want" in that situation. Admittedly, I don't know the full depth of the law for this, only for these instances. But, I could see an argument being made that extends beyond there. Not saying I agree with it, because I think anyone with all but the severest cases of mental incapacity could come to a decision on their health if given enough time and explanation when it comes to non-life threatening situations. It would have to be explained in a way they could understand it, of course. But, think it could realistically be explained.
In these abortion and sterilization cases, it was wrong to force them on the women. The other alternative of giving up for adoption would also be very difficult to explain to them as well. Not knowing enough about the cases, I'm only looking at it from an abortion/adoption stand. If these women did have enough mental capacity to care for, and raise the children, then that would have been the preferred direction to go.




Both parties are guilty of doing this shit. They're both corrupt as fuck.

I personally believe that a lot of people shouldn’t have kids. A large percentage of them even! But the thing is...the government enforcing that idea...is eugenics. Which I thought we already decided was bad years ago thanks to a certain world war.
 
I personally believe that a lot of people shouldn’t have kids. A large percentage of them even! But the thing is...the government enforcing that idea...is eugenics. Which I thought we already decided was bad years ago thanks to a certain world war.

Agreed. :)
 
Looking ahead a bit, also rambling idiotically a tad, 2020 should be interesting. I figured by now that Trump would be so awful that victory for the left would be a given but all things considered, could be worse. Nothing too shocking yet. Never would have predicted that he would fall in love with Un but hey, I won't judge. He still has plenty of time to really fuck things up but as of now, hard to guess who has the early advantage in 2020. Not about to foolishly underestimate the left and how, amusingly enough, toxic, they have proven to be. By then the check your privilege crowd could have every demographic alienated with their delusion fueled pity seeking silliness. Image problems will be tough for them to overcome. The reasonable and respectable image that Obama brought to the party is long gone and the foul stench of Clinton and her merry gang of obnoxious and overly privileged twenty somethings still permeates the air. Really strange strategy to remove all likable qualities from the party and to isolate themselves from the real world. I won't claim to understand it but I'm sure they know what they are doing.

Should be quite the battle. No clear favorite. Will the world once again be treated to the tears of the Tumblr crowd? Or will the tears belong to the anime body pillows of those tiki torch dorks? Is Trump cheating on Un with Kanye or is it simply platonic? Only time will tell I suppose.
 
What I am witnessing is so disgusting.
I cannot listen to another DNC narrative.
So much ewwwwwwwww.
 
Can you post some links of sources please? Not questioning what you're saying. But, am thinking might be good for being able to use the same source of info. Admittedly, I've also been pretty busy, and haven't had a chance to dig into his judicial history on rulings yet.

Thanks. :)

or a more indepth written article:
https://fee.org/articles/the-constitutional-reasons-to-oppose-kavanaugh-for-the-supreme-court/

- He was heavily involved in the drafting of the patriot act.

- he helped justify Bush's use of torture/water boarding by being brought in to a 2006 hearing as a judicial opinion, then when it was mentioned a month ago he completely lied about being there.

- When the government collecting metadata in became an issue due to Snowden, it was his ruling that stated: “the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” and "“that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.”"

- He has said on the record that he wants to overturn Roe V Wade.

- he believes that net neutrality regulations were "unlawful" and violated the first amendment
 
Last edited:
Knew it was coming.
Hurt more than I thought it would. Maybe because the swing vote came from a woman? Dudes have the luxury of doubt when women come forward. They have the luxury of doubt when they're faced with the idea that 50% or more of the women they love have been assaulted. But, Susan Collins has lived life as a woman. If she has any close friends, she's heard their stories. Daughters. Granddaughters. She knows what she's done without that doubt. She did it anyway. Hope she retires to good ol' Florida someday. I'd love to run into her.
 
Knew it was coming.
Hurt more than I thought it would. Maybe because the swing vote came from a woman? Dudes have the luxury of doubt when women come forward. They have the luxury of doubt when they're faced with the idea that 50% or more of the women they love have been assaulted. But, Susan Collins has lived life as a woman. If she has any close friends, she's heard their stories. Daughters. Granddaughters. She knows what she's done without that doubt. She did it anyway. Hope she retires to good ol' Florida someday. I'd love to run into her.
It's reported she also felt bullied.......by the women telling her their stories of being assaulted.
Poor little snowflake.
 
It's reported she also felt bullied.......by the women telling her their stories of being assaulted.
Poor little snowflake.
I hope that happens everywhere she goes for the rest of her days. If she hears it only from strangers and no one she personally cares for, she's fortunate.
 
It sucks that another Supreme Court judge decided to retire after Trump got elected, but it seems to be along party lines. The guy Brett is replacing is Anthony M Kennedy who was appointed by Reagan. I guess if you are playing in party lines, might as well retire when your party is in power.

Jeez, Clarence Thomas, the current oldest Supreme Court judge in terms of service, succeeded Thurgood Marshall (a Lyndon Johnson appointee) because of another Republican: Bush.

Basically this time it is Republican nominated guy Brett and Trump had already appointed Gorsuch (who replaced Antonin Gregory Scalia- a Reagan appointment).

It's tough to tell the Democratic party to get their shit together so that this stuff doesn't happen, but, somehow they lost the election to the star of "The Apprentice" which just boggles my mind to this day.

On the one hand nothing has changed as both Supreme Court replacements under Trump have replaced former appointees by Republican presidents, so, while I wish Brett would have been vetted better than Clarence Thomas, I am not surprised he wasn't. I just wish that with the Me too movement things might have changed. Oh well, maybe with the next election people go to the polls?
 
Knew it was coming.
Hurt more than I thought it would. Maybe because the swing vote came from a woman? Dudes have the luxury of doubt when women come forward. They have the luxury of doubt when they're faced with the idea that 50% or more of the women they love have been assaulted. But, Susan Collins has lived life as a woman. If she has any close friends, she's heard their stories. Daughters. Granddaughters. She knows what she's done without that doubt. She did it anyway. Hope she retires to good ol' Florida someday. I'd love to run into her.

After reading her entire speech here. I think Sen. Collins is a thoughtful, intelligent Senator trying to make the best of an awful situation. It is obvious she has spent a lot of time reading Judge K opinions and reviewing the evidence about the allegations. I think we get an example of Sen. Collins fair-mindedness in that she goes out of her way to clear Sen. Feinstein from leaking Dr. Ford letter.

I think a little humility is in order. The only thing I know for a fact is that none us know for fact what happened 36 years ago to Dr. Ford. I think it is reasonably likely that both Dr. Ford and Jude Kavanaugh are telling the truth as they believe it. I've been reading a lot about human memory in the last couple months. It is been an educational experience. This article is probably the best I've seen but there are pages on the subject on Wiki and score of journal articles. It is far from settled science, but as best I can deal, human memory is pretty bad, there is a reason that 70% is considered passing on many tests, cause that's about limit to accuracy of memory is without training. Even though we believe we have photographs of certain events, it is more like an impressionistic painting. Memory is malleable and degrades over time. Out gut-level beliefs about memory, are odds with the science, so trauma and adrenaline make our memory of an event move vivid but less accurate. Constantly recalling a memory makes it less accurate not more. The range of things that could have happened that night 36 years ago is immense, everything from Judge Kavanaugh attacking Dr. Ford and him not remembering because of booze, to him lying about it. Dr. Ford misidentify him, to her confusing dreams with real memories

I suspect for more than 90 of the Senators this was purely partisan the facts were unimportant. I'd like to the think for Sen. Collins, Murkowski, Flake and Manchin that wasn't the case. But perhaps I'm wrong and it is all part of the Kabuki theater.

But the Supreme Court is far less partisan than people believe. 50 years ago less than one of out 200 SCOTUS was partisan, yes that number has increased but it still small only 3-5% of cases are partisan now. As Senator Collins points out.

That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93 percent of the cases that they heard together. Indeed, Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96 percent of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.

Perhaps more importantly, Judges especially ones appoint by Republicans, have a way of disappointing the President who appointed them. Certainly, Justice Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, pissed off conservatives during much of his career. Chief Justice Roberts has outraged conservatives on issues from gay marriage to ACA. I'll bet Justice Kavanaugh will do the same.
 
@HiGirlsRHot To you, it probably looks like the act of a reasonable person voting with her party. She is privy to more information and a more personal understanding of rape than men are. Even a man who's been a victim of assault isn't going to hear from his girlfriends about theirs. So, I'm done excusing women who ignore what they know in order to side with those who are more powerful. Every time a woman does this, she validates all the beliefs men have about the scarcity of rape. If I were a man, I might believe the world is safer than it is for women. It would feel better at least! Women know. I'll go as far as to say that I hope the Dem women, if they knew it would all go down like this and just used Ford for political show, should be treated with the same unfriendliness as Collins. This has been terrible. I'm glad that my daughters, at least, are too young to have seen any of this because it's sent a hideous message.

I will be having wine for dinner tonight.
On top of the nonsense, Kav ruined beer for me until I can forget how his voice sounds snarling it.
That, in itself, is enough reason to be mad. :wasntme:
 
His perjury to Congress as well as his aggressive, partisan behavior in the hearing should disqualify him.
He destroyed any appearance of neutrality in his rulings in the future.
If he was an Obama nominee (assuming he'd get any hearing at all Merrick Garland ) and behaved like that, the Republicans would have hysterics.
 
His perjury to Congress as well as his aggressive, partisan behavior in the hearing should disqualify him.
He destroyed any appearance of neutrality in his rulings in the future.

I'm sorry but the perjury is BS, here is a point by point takedown of it. I've never been a victim of sexual assault, nor been accused of gang-raping a woman, so I don't know what the appropriate reaction is. If Senator switched from yes to no because of the anger he displayed, I'd think that would be reasonable, I just don't know of a single senator who did that.
 
I'm sorry but the perjury is BS, here is a point by point takedown of it. I've never been a victim of sexual assault, nor been accused of gang-raping a woman, so I don't know what the appropriate reaction is. If Senator switched from yes to no because of the anger he displayed, I'd think that would be reasonable, I just don't know of a single senator who did that.
His college roommates said he lied about not getting "extremely drunk" which he said he never did.
He said it under oath before Congress.
Perjury.
Judges are supposed to present the appearance of calm and composure.
Temper tantrums, though in style from the White House on down, do not present that appearance.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (a conservative) no longer supports Kavanaugh because of his display during his hearing.
He's not qualified.
 
Surely there's another qualified conservative asshole with a cleaner record that the republicans could hold up instead of this damaged goods.
I mean, who really gives a fuck about poor little Brett. Just dump his ass and find somebody else, christ almighty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.