Talk:Brett Kavanaugh

The witches
Are going to hex BK.

Should this be mentioned in the article? Anna Livia (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link - there are many others. Anna Livia (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought you were joking... I think it should be added to the page (witchcraft, Christian's counter spells, several Bible fanatics, the witch Dakota Bracciale... all material for RW). Try to add it by yourself, these are good sources with many details: 1, 2, 3. --Lankaster (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * DB is not on WP - and I am otherwise busy (not just in the Wikiverse).
 * One of the occasions on which RW opinion and that of 'the witches/Wicca' overlap significantly> Anna Livia (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As a general equivalency threshold: do we cover every dumbass pray-in 2 minutes hate that Pat Robertson ran on their subject's pages? Should we?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "One of the occasions on which RW opinion and that of 'the witches/Wicca' overlap significantly" Opinions like "Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places" ? Because that's what those "witches" were reciting (which, by the one, comes from the Bible).
 * I don't know Pat Robertson, if he does pray-in hate then that should be covered on his RW page. Of course if he does many pray-in 2 minutes hate, then there's no need to cover each one of them, citing a couple would be enough. --Lankaster (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty typical thing for right wing mega-pastors to have big public events pray to fix the evil libs. Same magical thinking, different religeon.  And it's not a particularly noteworthy thing in the scale of robertson craziness, tbh.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 'What I saw' was that the witches were doing a hex on him - and my comment was in reference to that. Anna Livia (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "And it's not a particularly noteworthy thing in the scale of robertson craziness" You're going off-topic, this thread is not about Robertson. --Lankaster (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Threads drift, and people are reminded of associated topics. Anna Livia (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Relevance: high. Crazy religious people do dumb things like this quite often. I'm making the case that it's pretty clearly not worth noting.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Some things are worth mentioning on the talk page so they are 'duly noted and someone else can develop them further in due course.' Anna Livia (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Foxnews cesspit
So, again, me and disagree about a section. Here is the version I propose:

and there is the version he proposes:

Since there no way we are gonna reach an agreement, I leave to mods or others the decision, , , , ,. --Lankaster (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * James Earl Cash's version is the more RationalWiki version. That gets my vote. Spud (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with Casey Anthony and OJ trials so I think it would help if there was a note tied to the end of it explaining the parallels. 17:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems James Earl Cash has done so (which in my opinion makes the section even worse). I have updated the beginning of this thread. --Lankaster (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, it turned out to be more bloated than I expected, especially for a footnote, but quit yer damn bitchin'. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This'll make James Earl Cash furious. --Lankaster (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edits. "Polish" just not justify the removal of information that I asked for. 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is not verified, it is not verified. I'm not sure if that extra commentary was necessary. Nerd (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's mean to drawl parallels between the two cases, and I do think the parallels are justified and we should be disputing anything that comes out of Fox News's lying mouth. 21:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll put back the footnote. Nerd (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "and I do think the parallels are justified" which parallel? For example, what has the ex-boyfriend letter to do with "The cherry on top is how Simpson's defense team managed to gain premature access to the prosecution's evidence on a technicality before the formal trial was even announced instead of being presented to the courtroom as is" ? --Lankaster (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why do you want a long citation on the O.J trial et al in this article? This version strikes me as histrionic and stupid. Were you even alive during the OJ trial? It was an excessive annoyance I would sooner forget. Why not create a separate article, "The Fox Cess Pit?" if you want to prattle on about Fox News? They deserve it.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not liking either version really
There's no wit in the comparison to popular media show trials. It doesn't feel fun and snarky. It doesn't highlight the big problem, the plausibility of fabrication of evidence by a fucking supreme court justice. I don't know what I'd change, but I definitely don't like Ariel's passive-voice dodge any more than I like the lackluster snark. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My view is the Fox letter is irrelevant to the story because it seems to me that most of the claims of the alleged letter are found in private testimoney to the Judiciary committee according to the JC chairman, e.g., "The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr. Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her testimony under oath." (from the Times article). What is the point of questioning the existence of the letter? True or not (and I don't care) the allegations are real allegations. I was trying to be helpful to LGM not edit the damn article.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifically I do not like the use of passive voice in any sort of discussion of crossed allegations. "X hasn't verified the letter" is 3000x better than "has not been verified".  What kind of magic sentient letter is going to get itself verified?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm only adamant about the comparison being illustrated because unverifiable information like this IS something you'd hear on Infowars and other shady websites. I was against including the letter bit to begin with because it's both article bloat and veers close to victim blaming as well as takes the focus off Kavanaugh, who is fucking shady to the nine as is. We don't need to be lenient or give the impression we're casting doubt on an accuser, which is especially insulting when you look at how the hearing was prematurely cancelled. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * True, you're right about that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is really no need to report any of the details. Ford said such and such, Kavanaugh denied it. Why retry the case in the article? There are plenty of prominent people willing to attack Kavanaugh. Why not quote them in case our anonymous dislike of him is not persuasive, if that's something you care about.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We both know it wasn't really tried in the first place. Let's leave the "re"s where they belong.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ReallY?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"recent history"
That phrasing was mine, and I back-checked to Reagan. But there is some variance about what counts as a "nomination process", whether it's the day a name is announced to the public or the day the case is first brought before congress or even when the seat opened. These factors can vary who had the shortest one. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we just say it's unusually short instead? 20:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Nerd (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Unlock request
, since you are the one who locked this page, could you please unlock it? I would like to update it. In particular, I would like to reflect recent developments with regards to a case against Planned Parenthood and the dozens of complaints against Brett Kavanaugh that were dismissed. Nerd (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've changed the protection to Sysops per your request. If you think it should be open to autoconfirmed as well, I'll leave that up to you. Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Nerd (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Judicial Precedent is not the same thing as "Appeal to Tradition"
This is totally wrong in the context of court decisions. Tradition is the entire point of judicial review. When the supreme court decides something a certain way, that's the way it stays until they take up the issue again. "the supreme court has affirmed this before so I will too" is what a lower court judge is supposed to say. Hannasanarion (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay, you're right. That's exactly what precedent is.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. Fixed! Nerd (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)