Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Talk:Brett Kavanaugh

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Icon law.svg

This Law related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver

Navbox[edit]

Just pointing out, if the crux of this article is going to be about the assault allegations, shouldn't we use the Feminism or MRA navbox? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It is too early to tell. Nerd (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It's also about perjury and possible impeachment, so no. Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Boy, that escalated quickly. Nerd (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Relevance?[edit]

@Bongolian Forgive me, but I don't see how information about his partying habits is relevant to the section "Perjury," or, for that matter, this article. Nerd (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. I see what you mean. (Half asleep. Sorry!) Nerd (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Limited investigation[edit]

I removed the sentence:

The limited investigation, which had been demanded by Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, was obviously meant to cover for any Senators sitting on the fence to confirm Kavanaugh.

from the beginning of the section "Accusations of sexual misconduct", with the motivation:

This is just a supposition

But I see that @Bongolian put that sentence back, without giving any motivation.

Could he elaborate? --Lankaster (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, @Lankaster. I have elaborated on it, with references. Bongolian (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian Still, that paragraph should not be at the beginning of the section (the reader doesn't know yet about Ford, Ramirez, Switnick's accusations... and he reads about an investigation), it should be after the accusations subsections. Maybe a subsection titled "FBI investigations"?. --Lankaster (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree, @Lankaster, it's not necessarily well placed. Bongolian (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian I've move it. --Lankaster (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

James Earl Cash[edit]

@James Earl Cash Right. Let sort this out.

Concerning the bit about the length of his nomination hearings, I am not saying that you are wrong and I realize that you have cited your claims (via Wikipedia), which is why I incorporated it into the lead section. The process was overly dramatic, but not as long as what some other Justices had to go through. However, what you actually wrote was too partisan, which is why I rewrote it.
On the reliability of Vox, in their own words, they "explain" rather than report the news, unlike, say, the BBC. (They also say they "shepherd" their audiences through the information.) According to their Wikipedia pageWikipedia's W.svg, which is full of citations, their editorial stance is "liberal".
You said it is "not even about the polygraph," yet you wrote, "Not helping matters however, is that he dodged a number of questions while he didn't." Didn't do what? This sentence comes right at the end of a paragraph about Dr. Ford taking the polygraph test. Nerd (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash @Nerd "Not helping matters however, is that he dodged a number of questions while he didn't." I'm concerned about this sentence too. Once it has been claimed that polygraph tests are not reliable, what is the point of highlighting that Kavanaugh didn't take one? Especially, that sentence seems to implies that Kavanaugh taking a polygraph test would have helped the matters, which in turn implies some kind of reliability of polygraphs.
Regarding Vox, I think that they should not be cited on this page. First, because as pointed out by Nerd, they "explain news", and with a clear political position I would add. Second, since they made incoherent arguments in order to support Ford, like (see here):
"Ford doesn't remember everything about that night. But she remembers the central trauma, and has not wavered in her assertion of who perpetuated it."
""Eyewitness misidentifications are known to be the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the US," Frenda says. "I know of countless cases in which this occurred.""
--Lankaster (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You're both being deliberately obtuse. He dodged a number of questions, while she didn't. Obviously. That speaks for itself and has nothing to do with the accuracy of lie detector tests. And Vox is a reputable site. Sure they swing liberal more often than not, but they're not the left wing equivalent of Fox News or whatever. re: the confirmation thing, I take particular issue with describing that as political wrangling when the main subject were rape accusations. That comes dangerously close to victim blaming and shitting all over the MeToo movement. That's more partisan than anything I could ever think of.
Looking back over it, I see now that a typo was the source of problems, but yeah, y'all are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Doesn't hurt for you guys to look over the source in question and ameliorate your confusion instead of needlessly holding this article back. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "He dodged a number of questions, while she didn't." So you are referring to the interrogations, not the polygraph test. You should make that clear, better if in another paragraph, because that paragraph is all about the polygraph test. --Lankaster (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash Stop putting back the sentence "Not helping matters however, is that he dodged a number of questions while she didn't." It is confusing and do not belong to the paragraph about the polygraph test. If you want to add information about Kavanaugh dodging questions, then write clearly and in a separate paragraph. --Lankaster (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash Are you going to clarify, and give more context, to the sentence "Not helping matters however, is that he dodged a number of questions while she didn't."? Now it is out of place and unclear. --Lankaster (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you okay there? I don't think I have to do that, it speaks for itself. There's no reason to take it out. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "Are you okay there?" Did you mean "Are you okay then?"? Otherwise I don't understand. I'm just saying that the sentence is not clear ("he", "she", who? What question he dodged and why this didn't help?) and it need more context. Also, putting it in the middle of paragraphs about Ford's statements is not a good idea, if anything it would be better just before the paragraph "In an announcement on October 4...". Anyway, you wrote that sentence so it's up to you to improve it. --Lankaster (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to take that as a no, you're definitely not okay. Still don't have to improve it, it stands on it's own merits. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Section "Perjury"[edit]

I find the section "Perjury" quite problematic. Some of the items of the list of "false and misleading statements" are not actually proved to be false neither misleading. And even so, a false statement is not automatically a perjury, but the whole section seems to implies that. Here my analysis:

Sources: Relman, KesslerRizzo, Kavanaugh hearing: Transcript

(1) "All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn't happen." I agree with KesslerRizzo that "the other three only said they had no memory of the gathering." so, taken literally, Kavanaugh's statement is false. However, before saying so Kavanaugh stated correctly that "all of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening." Hence, Kavanaugh "didn't happen" is more an improper synthesis of "they do not remember any such party ever happening" than a lie, since otherwise he would had come from the beginning with "didn't happen" and he would had stick with that.

(2) ""She and I did not travel in the same social circles."" Relman argument:

Kavanaugh also said that while it's possible he and Ford met at some point, the two did not overlap socially. But Ford said that she went out with one of Kavanaugh's friends, Chris Garrett, and attended four or five parties where Kavanaugh was also present. Ford also said she was friendly with Judge for two years before the summer of 1982.

that can be summarized by "Ford says so", which proves nothing. KesslerRizzo argument:

Kavanaugh’s own calendar lists a small gathering July 1, a Thursday, for “skis” — brewskis, or beer — that includes two people Ford named as being present in the house during the alleged attack — Patrick “P.J.” Smyth and Mark Judge. Also in attendance: “Squi,” Chris Garrett, who Ford said she was dating that summer. Thus it’s not credible for Kavanaugh to claim that such a gathering did not take place or that he and Ford were not in the same social circle.

It is perfectly possible to Kavanaugh to know Smyth, Judge, and Garret, but not being in the same "social circle" of Ford. That's essentially an argument of the form: If you know A, and if B knows C, then you are in the social circle of C. At this point, everyone could be in the social circle of everyone else. --Lankaster (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Rigging the Supreme Court[edit]

@James Earl Cash

Yet it should be noted that the White House also deliberately hampered the FBI investigation in question purely for the sake of rigging the Supreme Court into Republican control.https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/opinions/kavanaugh-fbi-charade-opinion-campbell/index.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/10/09/kavanaugh-classmate-fbi-investigation-joke-clumn/1575930002/</ref> A pinch o' salt please...

That's an extreme claim that require extreme evidences, and two opinion pieces are not evidences for obvious reasons. If the opinion pieces are well-sourced as you say, then cite the direct sources, instead of the opinion pieces. Anyway, do something to improve what you wrote, instead of edit warring. --Lankaster (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The opinion pieces are well-sourced and belong there. Not to mention they're from a classmate of Kavanaugh and a law analyst and someone who used to be in the FBI. This ain't some random blogger's nonsense.
Besides, it's an elephant in the room that the White House fucked over the FBI investigation. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "The opinion pieces are well-sourced" I have already addressed that, why do you need to make me repeat myself? If the opinion pieces are well-sourced as you say, then cite the direct sources, instead of the opinion pieces. --Lankaster (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Not gonna do that. Don't have to, don't want to. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian@CheeseburgerFace@CowHouse@DiamondDisc1@LeftyGreenMario@Spud I'm asking James Earl Cash to add primary sources instead of opinion pieces to his claim that "the White House also deliberately hampered the FBI investigation in question purely for the sake of rigging the Supreme Court into Republican control", but he keeps edit warring. --Lankaster (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Ordinarily, I'd say primary sources would be a good idea, but the ramming of Kavanaugh seems rather obvious on its face given the history. More evidence could certainly be added for the ramrodery, albeit circumstantial, if that helps you any, @Lankaster. Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian "More evidence could certainly be added" Actually I'm asking that at least one evidence is added, since right now there are only opinion pieces and those are not evidences, no matter the credentials of who wrote them. If, as James Earl Cash says, those opinion pieces are well sourced, than it shouldn't be difficult to add the primary sources to the page. The fact that James Earl Cash refuses to do so is indicative (and that's up to him, since he added that sentence). Alternative, the claim could be reformulated as "According to Big Credentials Guy, the White House..." so that it would be clear that (until some evidences would be provided) it's an opinion, not a fact. --Lankaster (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. If the opinion piece is well-sourced and well-reasoned, then it's no problem using them. "Why not use the sources in the links?" Because the opinion pieces do their job of synthesizing all sources they have and using them + reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. There's no reason to discount blogs and opinion pieces just because they are so; what matters more is their content. Yes, primary sources are good but we shouldn't bend backward to remove good opinion sources for the sake of "neutrality". Why have op-eds in the first place if they're not accepted as useful? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I would tend to agree with you, @LeftyGreenMario. I have some trepidation with this as a blanket statement though. Obviously, Op-eds can be pure bullshit and source some dubious material. Also the issue of Kavanaugh is highly politicized, making op-eds suspect. When op-eds are well-sourced and not obviously written by political hacks, and the writer has some obvious expertise in the issue at hand, I do think it's reasonable to cite them. Bongolian (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that, on this occasion, instead of writing, "This happened", it would be better to write, "According to Such and Such a Writer, this is what happened" and then cite the well-sourced opinion pieve written by a respected writer as a reference. Spud (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario @Bongolian But exactly where does the first opinion piece say that the White House also deliberately hampered the FBI investigation in question purely for the sake of rigging the Supreme Court into Republican control ? Because I read it and the main claim is that the FBI investigation was a "charade" and nowhere is written about the Republican control of the Supreme Court. --Lankaster (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
You answered your own question. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian I am well aware that bad op eds and blogs exist, but I tried to take the pains of narrowing it to good pieces and focusing on their content rather than what they are. This also counts for bad content, so again, the content matters. Lankaster: I think the word choice along with the surrounding context nets an inference that the White House rigged the Supreme Court for Republican control; it doesn't have to explicitly say so. Why this is not easy for you to understand is puzzling. Anyhow I did specify who wrote the opinions because it would otherwise venture into weasel territory, which is not informative. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario "I think the word choice along with the surrounding context nets an inference that the White House rigged the Supreme Court for Republican control;" I expected an answer like that. So what we have is not an opinion, but an inference from an opinion... which is even worse. "Why this is not easy for you to understand is puzzling." And here it comes the personal attack... Why do you have to insinuate that I am stupid? You already questioned many times my reading comprehension in another talk page and you called me a moron in the block log (what's the point of that?)... and now, out of nowhere, in an absolutely pacific conversation, you have to make this insinuation. I ask the other moderators @Bongolian@CheeseburgerFace@CowHouse@DiamondDisc1@Spud to stop this behavior. Not because I am offended, but because a moderator should not target an user with this personal attacks. --Lankaster (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
You are being obtuse again. Notice that I said the content matters more and you are still going by "it's an opinion, just like how Carl of Swindon, known idiot Youtuber decries "surveys" for no real reason except for percieved informality. You are still lacking reading comprehension here and while it's nice you are able to anticipate my arguments, you haven't actually responded to them that well. So, what are your beefs with those sources in question. Note I am asking what is wrong with their contents. Is the reasoning bad? Do the links follow to trustworthy sites that do support the claim? It's on you to examine the links, but you haven't done so. What you did is judging a book by its cover. So again, do you have any specific criticisms of those sources? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "You are being obtuse again... just like how Carl of Swindon, known idiot Youtuber...You are still lacking reading comprehension" Again, you are not able to write a post without insinuating that I'm an idiot. "Note I am asking what is wrong with their contents." I won't waste time making an analysis of those opinion pieces so that you can dismiss it by saying that I lack reading comprehension. The burden of the proof of the claim that the White House also deliberately hampered the FBI investigation in question purely for the sake of rigging the Supreme Court into Republican control is not up to me. As I said in my first post, that's an extreme claim and requires extreme evidences. I don't think that the opinion pieces give such evidences. If you say that they are well-sources, then I have already replies to that by saying that the direct sources could be cited, but nobody here was able to give a direct source supporting the claim in bold. --Lankaster (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
"Direct sources could be cited" I still don't see what's the point of this. The piece published in USA Today has synthesized opinion and has several links inside. What do you think we should do, paraphrase large swaths of passage from this and add the links in the source as citations? Your shifting of burden of proof to us is inappropriate: we have provided the burden of proof, being the very sources you dispute. It's up to you to tell us why we shouldn't use them. "I don't like them" is not acceptable criticism (and yes, this is pretty much your only argument). You need to support your claim that "it's an extreme claim and requires extreme evidence", which you haven't (unlike the moniker "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Republican rigging is within the realm of possibility, with gerrymandering and voter ID laws being a thing). It's also a subjective opinionated statement by you that definitely requires support. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "What do you think we should do, paraphrase large swaths of passage from this and add the links in the source as citations?" I think that you should stick to facts, and the claim in bold is not a fact but an opinion (tell me I'm repeating myself, but that they are opinion is written even in the headlines of CNN and USA Today articles!), and it's not even the opinion one founds in the given opinion pieces. I changed the paragraph so that now: it's clear that the claims are opinions, and the claims correspond to what is written in the opinion pieces. --Lankaster (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Sticking to just the facts is not enough. Take writing an essay: you have to form a thesis statement that is backed by all the facts. The statement you have trouble with is like a thesis statement derived from those two sources. Argument: deliberately hampering the FBI investigation in question purely for the sake of rigging the Supreme Court into Republican control. Supporting fact 1: The White House has limited scope and resources for the FBI investigation. Supporting fact 2: Kavanaugh is conservative. Supporting fact 3:The Supreme Court has a vacant spot that Kavanaugh is going to fill in for a while. Supporting fact 4: Republicans continue supporting him amid all the scandals. Supporting fact 5: Republicans have interfered Mueller investigation. Opinion conclusion from these facts: Republicans are hypocritical partisan hacks wanting to rig the Supreme Court with partisan hacks that agree with them. That conclusion is the glue that holds the facts together, as facts don't mean anything without the reasoning or the conclusion. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario I think you truly don't see how many suppositions you are making:
"Supporting fact 1: The White House has limited scope and resources for the FBI investigation." Maybe because there was no point in spending time and money on investigating accusations when all the supposed witnesses of the party had already not corroborate them? Take a look at the list of witnesses that Ford's attorneys wanted to be interviewed by FBI. No one of them was at the party, and many would had just said "I believe Ford because I trust her as husband/friend/etc."
"Supporting fact 2: Kavanaugh is conservative." So what?
"Supporting fact 3:The Supreme Court has a vacant spot that Kavanaugh is going to fill in for a while." Again, so what? The opportunity of a rigging doesn't imply one.
"Supporting fact 4: Republicans continue supporting him amid all the scandals." Never heard of presumption of innocence?
Anyway, now are you saying that Republicans are hypocritical partisan hacks wanting to rig the Supreme Court with partisan hacks that agree with them is a fact? --Lankaster (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
"Suppositons"? I am stating plain facts and using them to form a conclusion. You on the other hand, are creating suppositions. It is fact that the White House has limited investigations unless they did not. It is fact that Republicans have interfered with Mueller investigations, ignoring definition of what degree is "interfering". Your commentary is injecting opinion into facts, which is the why people write op-eds, the very thing you decry. Within my supporting facts, notice that I have not made any arguments. Your commentary is actually addressing the conclusion I have made, which the conclusion is an opinion that is formed after the facts are gathered. Which I blatantly stated is an opinion yet you still had the gall to insinuate I am stating as fact. Your "so what?" comments unwittingly highlights why we need good opinion (the conclusion I made makes it relevant). Otherwise there would be no arguments to make. That's why "facts only" is inadequate when you are presenting an argument. I am not saying my conclusion is a fact, otherwise it would be plainly stated as a fact. Why do you have such a poor grasp of argument 101 as well as differentiating fact from opinion? This isn rocket science. For goodness sake. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario ""Suppositons"? I am stating plain facts and using them to form a conclusion." You are jumping from facts to your conclusion by making a lot of suppositions. Other people gather facts as you did, then make their own suppositions, and conclude that Ford accusations were orchestrated by Democrats to obstruct Republicans. Am I going to do so? No, because I understand that's a faulty process. Indeed everything I wrote on the Kavanaugh's page was directly supported by a reference, without intermediary suppositions. --Lankaster (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I tried to make it easy to understand why people form opinions on things, after synthesizing facts and why op-eds work as sources. Also, these aren't baseless assumptions. Again, here is a list of facts: The Supreme Court has a vacant spot. Kavanaugh is conservative. If Kavanaugh fills the spot, there will be a conservative majority. Kavanaugh has been accused of not only sexual assault but also perjury several times. The Republicans shortened the FBI investigations on Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has mentioned conspiracies about liberals and the media. And now here are opinions and reasoning: Kavanaugh is a partisan politically charged person who is unqualified for the job especially after having demonstrated perjury. Because the Republicans have limited the scope of the FBI investigation in spite of sexual assault (on top of the president and his supporters mocking Ford) and in spite of perjury, and because the Republicans have much to gain from stuffing a Supreme Court with a big majority that supports their views for literally years, and Republicans have been shown to rig results (voter ID laws, gerrymandering, vacating various spots in the administration, possible (read: possible) Russian collusion) it is not unreasonable to say, charitably speaking, that Republicans have a major conflict of interest when trying to put this person in Supreme Court and are possibly cheating their way (rigging) in. This is why the op-ed calls it a "charade", especially when the controversy attracted so much media attention and made a lot protestors so angry to the point the White House is considering penalizing them. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@LeftyGreenMario, thank you for laying this out in such detail. Clearly Lankaster is either being exceptionally dense about this issue or he is just trolling this page. I don't think this really warrants further discussion and Lankaster would be better off finding greener pastures elsewhere, either on less-controversial RW pages, or elsewhere on the internet. Bongolian (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian@CheeseburgerFace@CowHouse@DiamondDisc1@Spud@LeftyGreenMario "05:57, 14 October 2018 LeftyGreenMario (talk | contribs) blocked Lankaster (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×0 seconds (account creation disabled) (Saying op eds are bad and should stick to facts but also doing exactly what op eds do when presented with facts)" link What's the point of blocking me for 0 seconds just to write that on the Block Log? If this is not a moderator targeting an user I don't know what it is. I'm not edit warring, and LeftyGreenMario blocks me just because I disagree with him on the talk page. --Lankaster (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

That may have been a bit of a pointless block but it hasn't done you any harm. You really don't have anything to complain about there. And LeftyGreenMario is not abusing her powers. Spud (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Spud "it hasn't done you any harm." But it shows that LeftyGreenMario targets me, while a moderator should not have this childish behavior against an user. "You really don't have anything to complain about there" My complain is that a moderator should try to moderate, instead of keeping questioning the intelligence of an user. There is no reason to begin all posts by making an insinuation that I am an idiot. Really what's the point if not trying to upset me and making the conversation impossible? And if I would start to insult LeftyGreenMario in a similar manner, I bet I would be blocked, so... much fair. "And LeftyGreenMario is not abusing her powers" Technically, according to @CowHouse 03:47, 29 September 2018, LeftyGreenMario blocked me for an unusual long time in the past.
You agree with me ("it would be better to write, "According to Such and") that I had a point saying that it should have been made explicit that the claim was an opinion ("the claim could be reformulated as "According to Big Credentials Guy,"), and my successive edits show that I'm trying to make the page as more precise and objective as possible. So why a moderator should target me in this way? --Lankaster (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Quit whining. LGM isn't abusing you, she is asking you to provide support for your position, that's it. If you are unwilling to fullfil this rather simple request you must also being willing to let the matter go. In summary, if you cannot or will not support your own position, why on Earth would you expect someone else to? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie/sig "she is asking you to provide support for your position" I'm going to support my position, but I had to stop to point out this continue targeting and mocking, which is in fact my complain: "There is no reason to begin all posts by making an insinuation that I am an idiot. Really what's the point if not trying to upset me and making the conversation impossible?" --Lankaster (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You're acting like an idiot, and thin skinned one at that. Suck it up and present your case or shut your trap. This detour into offended-land grows dull. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie "You're acting like an idiot, and thin skinned one at that. Suck it up and present your case or shut your trap." This idiot is improving the page. Instead you came into this discussion to give no contribution but telling me that I'm an idiot. --Lankaster (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Argument by assertion. Also learn the difference between "your behavior is stupid" and "you are stupid", you seem to believe they are one and the same, when indeed they are not. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie "Argument by assertion." Nope. "you seem to believe they are one and the same, when indeed they are not." You seem to believe to have made an interesting point, but it's not. --Lankaster (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
If I'm being rude it's that I'm being flabbergasted for having to go through the effort of explaining the very basics of how arguments and essay-writing work and you keep misunderstanding even my biggest efforts at trying to make it easy to understand. It's courtesy to at least have a good grasp of argument and at least concede when people are saying you're not doing it right. And hey, I still need an answer: what are your beefs with those sources in question. Note I am asking what is wrong with their contents. Is the reasoning bad? Do the links follow to trustworthy sites that do support the claim? It's on you to examine the links, but you haven't done so. What you did is judging a book by its cover. So again, do you have any specific criticisms of those sources? Edit: Finally, about that "excessive block length" CowHouse may have disagreed about my setting block length, but you were edit warring in a passive-aggressive manner and that's completely unacceptable behavior. We operate on a mob. Sometimes, people disagree and that's okay here. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario/sig About your first post: I think you actually showed why opinions pieces are not good as sources, at least for a site that claims to defend truth and objectivity. First you listed as a fact that "Kavanaugh has been accused of not only sexual assault but also perjury several times.", and that's true. Then in your list of opinions and "reasoning", this became "Kavanaugh [...] is unqualified for the job [...] after having demonstrated perjury" which is a false statement, because, right now, no perjury has been demonstrated. Indeed, "perjury" is a delicate legal term, and, if anything, it'll be a judge to establish if Kavanaugh committed it, not a bunch of guys on a wiki. Then you continue with "...in spite of sexual assault", so you are arguing as the sexual assault has happened, but all we have is an accusation of sexual assault, and assuming it happened is extremely biased.
About your second post: "And hey, I still need an answer: what are your beefs with those sources in question. Note I am asking what is wrong with their contents." I already said that I won't waste time making an analysis of those opinion pieces so that you can dismiss it by saying that I lack reading comprehension. The burden of the proof of the claim that the White House also deliberately... is not up to me. Also, there's no point in going on with the criticism of a paragraph which now has been changed, apparently you write this before reading that I'm handling the new version of the paragraph. Also also, now I'm not criticizing the content of the sources, so again no reason to tell you what is wrong with their contents. --Lankaster (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Well I mean you can always prove me wrong that you actually do have reading comprehension. You're just being lazy and being uncooperative for whatever reason just because you think I'll just dismiss you out of hand. You're being really thick here. People are saying you're either lying or being really dense but I'll Hanlon's Razor it and you're just being dense. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Rigging the Supreme Court (improvement)[edit]

So, after my post, the paragraph:

Yet it should be noted that the White House also deliberately hampered the FBI investigation in question purely for the sake of rigging the Supreme Court into Republican control.ref1ref2 A pinch o' salt please...

became

In the fallout of the FBI investigation, several have criticized the White House for deliberately hampering the FBI investigation in question purely for the sake of rigging the Supreme Court into Republican control and while blaming Democrats for apparent obstruction of justice. Josh Campbell,ref1 a CNN law enforcement analyst and former Supervisory Special Agent with the FBI, called the investigation a "charade" in the midst of a politically charged climate, while the White House has deliberately tied its arms back all while when it has tried using the FBI to obstruct Robert Mueller's investigation. Similarly, William E. Scheuerman, a Kavanaugh's Yale classmate, called the investigation a "joke", saying that, likely under pressure from President Donald Trump and the Senate GOP leadership, the FBI ignored the information his classmates and him tried to provide.ref2

which I think it's better.

Still there are things I disagree about it:

(a) As I have already pointed out, ref1 does not support the claim in bold. Indeed it does gives arguments about the investigation being a "charade", but it does not speak of Republican control.

(b) ref2 makes a weaker statement than the claim in bold, saying that "Likely under pressure from President Donald Trump and the Senate GOP leadership, the FBI ignored the information my classmates and I tried to provide."

--Lankaster (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems like your argument is that if an source explicitly doesn't say X then X isn't a supported statement. The surrounding context in the article should be clue enough what Republican goals are. Why do you think Campbell called it a "charade"? The likely under pressure part is speculation, yes, but it's an educated guess. Why else would the FBI ignore crucial information? President is shown to be a bully. Not sure about the role the Senate GOP plays into it, but if someone can elaborate, that would be nice. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm just sad my normal "let's be honest and say they preferred a rapist" is unacceptable for articles about living people, but come on, the republicans are useless scumfuckers and wanted a rapist. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "Why do you think Campbell called it a "charade"?" I could give you any answer, but (if we want to be objective) it doesn't matter what I think are the reasons Campbell called it a "charade", it matters what reasons Campbell wrote in his article, and he didn't write of Republican control. "Why else would the FBI ignore crucial information?" Again, my opinion doesn't matter. The second opinion piece has to support the claim in bold, and he surely does it better than the first opinion piece, but even Scheuerman is careful and write it with a "likely". If one wants to be correct, one cannot write that "Mr. X says Y happened" while, in truth, "Mr. X says is likely that Y happened" --Lankaster (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed "I'm just sad my normal "let's be honest and say they preferred a rapist" is unacceptable for articles about living people" I think the unacceptableness has nothing to do with the people being alive or dead. --Lankaster (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Nah, Thomas Jefferson was a slave-owning, rapist scumbag. Fite me ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know of American History, Jefferson was a slaveowner and had children with some of his slaves. I don't know about rape, but even if he was a rapist that has nothing to do with my previous comment. Don't you really see why it would be wrong to write on the RW page that Kavanaugh is a rapist? --Lankaster (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely would not publish that kind of functionally true statement on a rationalwiki article about a living person. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Good for you, but the correct reason is not that Kavanaugh is alive. If he was dead, it would make no difference on the wrongness of such statement. --Lankaster (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why you think that. "Speak no ill of the dead" is a silly sentiment serving now purpose. Holding your tongue to not slander a person whose livelihood may depend on reputation is sensible and moral(though I'd have precious few tears for a fucking torture advocate suffering that). What you're asking is pointless and unnecessary politeness. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not asking anything. I'm saying that there's a reason why writing on the RW page that Kavanaugh is a rapist would be wrong, and that such reason has nothing to do with Kavanaugh being alive or dead. I think you don't see what this reason is. --Lankaster (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
No, there's more than enough reason to think that if the FBI investigation hadn't gone to shit, public perception of this man would be VERY different. Then again, he's unpopular as is so...
I'm also pretty sure that if Kavanaugh wasn't classified as a living person, any moderate decorum on this page would go right out the window.James Earl Cash (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash Again, even if Kavanaugh just died, writing on his RW page that he was a rapist would be wrong. Don't you and @Ikanreed really understand why? --Lankaster (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not willing to give this guy any passes as his dubious character shows, the issue of whether he's a rapist or not be damned. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@James Earl Cash Talking of question dodging... you are quite good at it too: Don't you and ikanreed really understand why? --Lankaster (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Kavanaugh is an insufferable dolt as is. We don't give passes to people simply because. The sex accusations are simply the icing on the cake. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Buddy, pal, listen. I understand why it's rude and insulting to call someone a rapist without exceptionally good reason. Of course I understand that. What you're missing, is that this guy totes is, and only the unprovability(and the attached problem of defamation) of it warrants not saying it bluntly. Thanks. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed "this guy totes is, and only the unprovability(and the attached problem of defamation) of it warrants not saying it bluntly" So you are both saying that Kavanaugh is a rapist but that such statement in unprovable. What's yours? A leap of faith? Come on... All we know is that Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual assault (not rape), and that the accusers have not been able to give evidences beyond their much sketchy testimonies. --Lankaster (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
"Prove to me this thing that is extremely apparent based on context, but allows room for reasonable doubt if you stretch the bounds of reason just a little" Come on man, preponderance of evidence is a thing, and it's different from provable. You know this, but your a pedantic little shit and purposefully misunderstand things, and I'm kinda sick of it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
"this thing that is extremely apparent based on context" It's not. I read Ford's accusations, and then I heard her testimony, and I gotta say that I pictured in my mind a monster trying to rape a girl... but that's all we have: her words. Was Kavanaugh a heavy drinker? It really seems so, but that doesn't make true any sexual assault accusation against him. Taking into account the lack of main details and the many changes of Ford's version, this really goes no where... "but your a pedantic little shit and purposefully misunderstand things, and I'm kinda sick of it" You are surely full of hate, and you always assume bad faith in your interlocutor. Couldn't just be, maybe, that I have an opinion different from yours, without being a pedantic little shit which purposefully misunderstand things? Just to say hypothetically... --Lankaster (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not here to prove this to you, it's not going in the article, and I don't really want to deal with your level of pedantry about things today. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Lankaster, are you actually trying to differentiate between sexual assault and rape? Next you're gonna pull the Todd Akin card. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
"are you actually trying to differentiate between sexual assault and rape?" I don't need to: legally they are different things. --Lankaster (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Holy shit, you've gone straight to Todd Akin territory. Well done! Next you're gonna tell me that Dov Charney didn't rape anyone when he threatened his female subordinates to either suck his dick or he'd fire them and blacklist them from the industry, he just "coerced" them.
fucking hell you are the worst James Earl Cash (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Lankaster, for fuck's sakes stop edit warring when there has hardly been a consensus and a lot of people disagree with your edits. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Lankaster, for fuck's sakes stop edit warring" I made three different edits (link, link, link), and only the first consisted in reverting one of your edits (to a previous version of Nerd). You reverted everything back, without any comment (for example, what's wrong in putting the paragraphs about FBI investigation in the same section?). Why don't you tell me directly that you will revert any of my edits, no matter what? Because that's how you are acting. --Lankaster (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently discussing how milquetoast the opening section is below, questioning the "goodness" of the FBI investigation is both bad on a grammatical level and anemic, and I don't even give a shit about the Senator Flake paragraph. I already told you there isn't a consensus here, and considering you gallivant on the talk page on a regular basis, you have no excuse of ignorance. Knock it off. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "I don't even give a shit about the Senator Flake paragraph." What does this mean? Are you OK or against putting it at the end of Ford accusations section? --Lankaster (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
what about I don't give a shit about the Senator Flake paragraph do you not get? James Earl Cash (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

An unclear sentence[edit]

@James Earl Cash keeps putting back this sentence at the end of the paragraph about Ford's polygraph test. I think that the sentence is written badly ("he"/"she" should be specified), unclear (what does "helping matters" means?), and, most of all, does not belong to that paragraph, which is about Ford's polygraph test and not Ford vs Kavanaugh hearing. The information about Kavanaugh question dodging is already on the page, in the more appropriate section "Perjury", and written more clearly and with more information. --Lankaster (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence is very clear, and just because it's already in the perjury section doesn't mean it also fits on the section literally devoted to Ford herself. You've never seen any wiki page or study that uses the same citation multiple times? Please. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
"The sentence is very clear" Let's hear also @GrammarCommie's opinion, since it seems he prefers my version. Anyway, you did not reply to my post: that sentence has nothing to do with Ford's polygraph test, it does not belong to that paragraph. --Lankaster (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure it does. It's pretty bad when Ford checks off on the polygraph AND answers every question while he doesn't. And if you're gonna bring in GrammarCommie, then I say we should have all the mods weigh in. That's what you've done before, I think it's only fair we get this issue judged definitively beyond a shadow of a doubt. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
"It's pretty bad when Ford checks off on the polygraph AND answers every question while he doesn't." polygraph tests prove nothing. "then I say we should have all the mods weigh in." OK, ping them yourself. --Lankaster (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yikes, somebody's a bit hostile today. Yeesh. Something I wanna add for review, is that Lankaster took my sentence and at first moved it away from the end of the polygraph paragraph, he just put it in a separate section still devoted to Ford. I took no issue with that, I just think he's now moving the goalposts and making a big deal about how the sentence itself makes no sense when that is not true, especially not with the greater context of her credibility versus his.
@Spud @LeftyGreenMario @Bongolian @DiamondDisc1 @CheeseburgerFace @CowHouse Sorry to ping y'all and get you to kick a dead horse here yet again, but for some reason Lankaster takes issue with me using a conclusion and cited source twice. He's trying to pull rank here simply because GrammarCommie liked one of his contributions better, all the while ignoring the value of what I'm putting forth. Would like for you to weigh in and settle this issue once and for all. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't ascribe any value to the fact that Ford passed a polygraph test. It's important to bear in mind though that the Senate hearing was a not a court of law, and that it didn't even abide by the normal rules of the Senate. It's important compare the two testimonies, Ford was measured and answered all questions; Kavanaugh was evasive, probably lied and was at times hostile and paranoid. Kavanaugh's character is not the type that an honest broker would wants to see on the Supreme Court, nor is Kavanaugh believable. Bongolian (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian The issue is if James Earl Cash's sentence should stay written as it is, at the end of paragraph on Ford polygraph test, and despite the fact that such information is already in the section "Perjury". I invite you to read the whole paragraph to better judge if that sentence belongs there. --Lankaster (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "Something I wanna add for review, is that Lankaster took my sentence and at first moved it away from the end of the polygraph paragraph, he just put it in a separate section still devoted to Ford. I took no issue with that" Then, at least you could have leave it in the separate section, instead of putting it back at the end of the polygraph test paragraph. I'm going to separate it from polygraph test paragraph. --Lankaster (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You already did that and I didn't complain. Then you took issue with it on the nebulous idea that it's unclear and irrelevant and moved it to the perjury section. I still think it belongs in the Ford section. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash@Lankaster Given that the content pertains to the subject of possible perjury, and given how having the exact same content in two seperate sections is both sloppy and childish, it seems to me that Lankaster's version makes more sense. If you wish to dispute my opinion on the matter, do so, but the edit warring over what amounts to less than a paragraph is getting old fast. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it belongs in both sections for roughly the same reason Bongolian said. When Kavanaugh was hysterical in his questioning while Ford was not, when he outright dodged questions, when the matter is something as serious as rape, then yes it belongs on the grounds on how credible he looks, especially in light of how the FBI investigation was shot to shit. We don't need to be so "objective" that analysis becomes anemic. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination hearing[edit]

Right. @James Earl Cash, my point is only about the process, which, frankly, Dr. Ford should not have had to go through. Possible victims should not have to recall their painful memories in public. It was unprofessional. Furthermore, whether or not someone is guilty or not is not determined by a Congressional hearing, or a TV trial, but a proper court of law following a thorough investigation, which we mentioned was undermined by Trump. The nomination hearing should have been routine, but instead turned into a political battle, and a polarizing one at that. I do believe the phrase "political wrangling" is appropriate because Kavanaugh revealed himself to be quite biased and thus unsuitable for the position of a Supreme Court Justice. This is also mentioned in the article. Does that answer your question? Nerd (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase because it can imply that his accusers were politically motivated, when that should not at all be possible as a takeaway. I'm only willing to compromise if you include something that highlights just how uneven this whole thing was, which lays blame at the foot of Kavanaugh and his supporters, instead of being so ambiguous and neutral that it falls flat. For example, there can be plenty mockery in an article, but at the same time, that doesn't equate to blame and condemning someone, which given Kavanaugh's behavior and history in addition to the GOP fracas with the FBI investigation, is needed. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if being neutral is a problem, as long as we are accurate. Why not let the facts speak for themselves? Keep in mind that mockery and humor should not replace facts. Also remember that the accused remain innocent until proven guilty. There has been no proper investigations, so no conclusions can be drawn. If you want to lay blame at the feet of Kavanaugh and his supporters, go no further than the final sentence of the lead section. (I believe I wrote it.) For more, go straight down to the sections on his judicial views, especially the first subsection, and his hatred of the Clintons. Nerd (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd "Why not let the facts speak for themselves?" Good luck with that, it's what I'm trying to do since I created this page. But, apparently, many users want to speak for the facts, and have already established that Kavanaugh is guilty, and the nomination has been rigged. --Lankaster (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
There's a presumption of innocence, it doesn't mean that the accused party is definitively declared to have not done it, or that the acquired evidence is automatically null and void. In light of the sham of an FBI investigation and how much of a tool Kavanaugh is, we shouldn't hold back for some pretense of decorum, and we certainly shouldn't give way to any unfortunate interpretations as I've mentioned above. Additionally, "sticking to the facts," when he's already shown himself to be a fool and the FBI investigation was turned on it's head by the GOP while trying to directly say so is as weaselly a statement as they come. This is like saying evolution is just a theory, and we still need to have a 50/50 debate. Hell no. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash You can see for yourself that Kavanaugh has "already shown himself to be a fool and the FBI investigation was turned on it's head" in the lead section. It's all there. I agree with your first sentence. Nerd (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe this article is drawing conclusions, but speculation is fine as long as it's backed up. Why do we have Trump-Russia link? We have facts, but we also draw speculation to glue all those facts together. Isn't that Wikipedia's job to stick with dry facts? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Keep in mind that this is an article about a living person; we need to cite at least one credible source to support every single factual statement. We need to be airtight. Speculations are discouraged. Legal challenges can and have proven to be problematic. Trent Toulouse himself was sued multiple times because of things people have written in this Wiki. Again, everyone remains innocent unless proven guilty.
I don't understand your question about the Trump-Russia link. I added that bit because it is relevant and is supported by the citation that follows. Nerd (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
All that said, the one thing I'm certainly unwilling to budge on is describing his hearing as just "political wrangling." So let's start with that and move on as we go along.
I take issue with the sentence as it unnecessarily casts doubt on Ford and the other accusers which is bad enough given the gravity of their accusations, but it also comes close to both sides rhetoric. James Earl Cash (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Very well. Since accusations of sexual assault are very serious, one needs strong evidence in order to convict someone. But because no proper investigations have been conducted, no conclusions can be drawn. What happened on television was utterly unprofessional. Instead of an ordinary (televised) job interview, we have yet another polarizing political event. That is why I use the phrase "political wrangling." If you think it unnecessarily casts doubt on Dr. Ford's testimony, we can add something to it. How about, "He was sworn in after a nomination hearing that involved a testimony from a possible victim of sexual assault (see below) and some serious political wrangling"? Nerd (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I still think it sounds too detached. Political wrangling is more or less the state of affairs in Washington, it's ambiguous and doesn't highlight just what an absurd farce the hearing was. Additionally, it wasn't just Ford who accused him. So if for whatever reason the article decides to be "professional" we need to both indicate that multiple women accused him and the FBI investigation was completely run roughshod over by the Republicans in the introductory paragraph. James Earl Cash (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
In the lead section, there exists the adjective "multiple" before "accusations of sexual misconduct." I think it is obvious that the FBI could not do its job because Trump limited the time and scope of the investigation he ordered. You can't do that if you want to get to the bottom of things. Nerd (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd@James Earl Cash Agreed, there is enough evidence to conclude that Kavanaugh faced severe charges that were not given their due consideration. Further, even if he was innocent, the behavior of government officials did nothing to reflect this possibility, and implied what is called a consciousness of guilt by said officials. These are the facts as we know them, and hiding them would be dishonest, not to mention immoral and quite possibly illegal. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd "because no proper investigations have been conducted" I wonder which kind, if any, of proper investigation could have been conducted. Because Ford's attorneys themselves asked an FBI investigation consisting essentially in interviewing people who were not at the party of the alleged sex assault, and who didn't even known of the allegations until recently, but who "can attest Ford character and credibility". --Lankaster (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Nerd, that still doesn't address how the phrase "political wrangling" is ambiguous and has negative connotations attached to it, or how the revision you suggested still leaves out the other two women. I gotta ask, what is your reason for going easy on this guy? I mean I know Lankaster is ideologically motivated to say the least, but what are your reasons? James Earl Cash (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, Dr. Ford was the only one who testified. The other women are covered by "multiple accusations of sexual misconduct." Yes, "political wrangling" has negative connotations attacked to it because instead of a routine (televised) job interview, we had a political event marked by deeply polarizing partisanship. If you dislike that phrase, I suggest an alternative, "political battle." The sentence then reads, "He was sworn in after a a testimony from a possible victim of sexual assault (see below) in a nomination hearing that became a political battle."
I'm not sure what you mean when you say I'm "going easy on this guy," because I am only insisting on sticking to the facts as we know them. If you did not notice, it was I who added the last sentence of the lead section and the fact that Kavanaugh caught Trump's attention because of his views on presidents facing lawsuits. Nerd (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
"I'm not sure what you mean when you say I'm "going easy on this guy," because I am only insisting on sticking to the facts as we know them." @Nerd You should understand that James Earl Cash wants this page to be written as Kavanaugh is guilty, yet he calls other "ideologically motivated". --Lankaster (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Nerd, you're deliberately ignoring my criticisms and trying to argue that your version is spotless because of your intentions instead of what it can actually imply. We don't need to go easy on this guy at all, contempt is well deserved, and worse yet, anything less than what is essentially condemnation gives the article enough leeway that some people can and will think we're excusing him or even taking his side. I still wonder why you want to go easy on him. It's not like my suggestion for the opening paragraph is even that alarming or lacking in tact, it's just enough edge to highlight the absurdity of this man and his hearing. You taking issue with that should be the problem, not my version of the intro paragraph.
I even rechecked that exchange we had on my talk page and you were kinda smarmy there to Mario too, which I didn't notice the first time in my haste to address you. Underneath all the veneer of civility and reason, I'm starting to see a pattern. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Once again, I am not "going easy" on that guy. Nor do I support "edge." All I am saying is that we should state the (relevant) facts in the most objective manner possible, and let readers think for themselves. I don't think this Wiki should become a blog. We need to make this page objective, not another partisan platform.

You noticed I was being "smarmy" to Mario? Cool. I was just pointing out what I saw to be an error.
I said it before and I will say it again. Dr. Ford should not have to give a public or televised testimony. No possible victims of sexual assault should. The nomination hearing should have been a routine and respectful job interview, not a political battle. If you still think I am "going easy" on that guy, check the page's history. I added the bits that explain why he is a poor candidate. Read the whole introductory section. It's all there.
New suggested edit: "He was sworn after a weeks-long political battle and a contentious nomination hearing that involves a testimony from a woman who accused him of sexual assault. (More below.)" Nerd (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Listing Kavanaugh's list of offenses is just that, stating them. It wouldn't be going easy on him to omit that info, it would be literal deceit. And being "objective" by refusing to take any harsh stance against him IS giving him the gentle touch. We haven't been nice to Jordan Peterson, Donald Trump, James Damore, Bill Maher, Barack Obama, Stefan Molyneux, Sarah Palin or and fuck knows how many others, and rightfully so. Sometimes there's no nice way to say things. Additionally, if you've ever read any seriously scholarly study of anything, whether it's philosophy, science, literary analysis, or whatever, they are far from your version of objectivity as possible. They most certainly make their opinions known, not just leaving them for the reader to decide. It'll be a cold day in hell before a reputable journal in biology gives the gentle touch to creationism or pretty much any scholarly study period refuse to take an overt position on scientology, and rightfully so.
To reiterate, the version you object to perfectly highlights what a skeezy hearing the guy had to begin with and isn't nearly as harsh as you're trying to make it out to be, if at all. That's it. I don't know why you're continuing to argue with me over this. I even looked at your contributions and they simply list what he's done, I wouldn't know your actual opinion about the guy if I hadn't looked on this talk page here. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "I even looked at your contributions and they simply list what he's done, I wouldn't know your actual opinion about the guy if I hadn't looked on this talk page here." Isn't that a good thing? Or at least not bad? RW pages should reflect facts not users opinions. --Lankaster (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash I have read plenty of scholarly works. I can always recognize the style. Sometimes, they have opinions, but are usually agreeable or very mild. At other times, they discuss the topics at hand in a disinterested tone. Creationism or scientology are fringe ideas and have never been mentioned in the works I have read; they simply do not deserve the attention.
My opinion on him is immaterial. I am not here to blog; I am here to state the relevant facts as I know them. What's wrong with stating his judicial views? Nerd (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
So is there a reason you're deliberately avoiding my points and being especially contentious over an extremely harmless sentence to begin with? Honestly I'm sick of your charade of civility, put up or shut up. At this point, it's become condescending and exhausting to deal with. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The reason is what I told you. We are not here to blog. It is not a harmless sentence. We ought to be professional, objective, and accurate. Again, I am not saying you are wrong. I just want to mollify your language so that this article does not become a rant. Nerd (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, and the version you're objecting to IS accurate and professional. It's hardly a rant and is, as you say, agreeable and very mild. Your version sucks the blood straight out of the opener. It's not like it's calling him a hacky piece of shit, it's giving a correct and dare I say it, restrained take on his hearing. I seriously feel like I'm dealing with one of those civility police like Conor Friedersdorf who will argue to the end of the earth that the media overestimated the deliberately disruptive action of MLK and other social organizers in the past but will then say in the same breath that we're being too hard on Jordan Peterson when he said on Twitter that he wants to fight Pankaj Mishra. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't know who those people are, with the exception of Martin Luther King, Jr. (I don't spend much time on social media.) Anyway, I'm sure you can do better than that. That kind of rhetoric is unlikely to be persuasive. Nerd (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The perfect is the enemy of the good. We're not here to convince everyone, we're certainly not here to win over "both sides," and in the case of the media circus that Kavanaugh's hearing was, a little bit of opprobrium is due. Again, the intro you're disputing is exceptionally mild. You still haven't given one reason to actually object to it in particular, instead parroting blanket cliches about how we need to be "objective." James Earl Cash (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I never said anything about winning over both sides. We should only state the facts as we know them in the clearest manner possible. Let the facts speak for themselves. Let our readers think and decide for themselves. Nerd (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a bit of an editorial overreach right then and there. Any paper or study worth it's salt makes it's opinion known, if not from the conclusion of the thesis alone, then certainly in passing remarks from the author either mildly or overly, and make no mistake, this is an issue that we should have an opinion on. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
How could it possibly be an editorial overreach when we refrain from expressing our opinions or using loaded language and instead only stick to the facts? Did you mean "any paper or study worth its salt makes its conclusions known in the abstract"? There has been no proper investigation or trial. No conclusions can be drawn.
You are of course free to share your opinions if you so choose. But I'm afraid this article is not the platform for it. May I suggest you write an essay? Nerd (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Cut the bullshit already. The man himself has acted in bad faith numerous times and his hearing was a sham. It's irresponsible to not overly criticize him, just like it'd be irresponsible to make an article about something that Trump said and take it at face value without identifying it for what it is or the baggage that any statement he makes comes prepackaged with. And again, the section we're fighting about isn't even about him, it's about his hearing, which any sensible person can and should say was a joke. I don't like the phrase intellectual dishonesty if only because of it's popularity around Ayn Rand devotees, but holy fuck are you a shining beacon of it. Move the goalposts some more why don'tcha? James Earl Cash (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Since when did I disagree that the nomination hearing was poorly done? Since when did I disagree that he is a biased judge and thus a poor candidate for the Supreme Court? Nerd (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
In that case, why the fuck do you have an issue with putting that opinion forth on the main page? You'll go on and on about how we need to list all his problems, but then whine about how we need to let the readers decide for themselves and be "objective." The two absolutely do not compute and you're lying through your teeth when you say that RW does not make it's opinions known, to say nothing that the section we're arguing about has jack shit to do with how his hearing was inconclusive! James Earl Cash (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm here to talk about how to improve this article, not to opine on how RW should be. The two objectives go together quite nicely. Since he is now a Supreme Court Justice, his judicial views are relevant. Nerd (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Fucking hell but you're a weaselly little shit. Make an argument or don't, but I'm going to keep reverting the opening paragraph. kthxbai James Earl Cash (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
My argument has been made multiple times. We should not be overly opining or using loaded language. We should stick to the facts. That's the best way to be taken seriously. Nerd (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd "My argument has been made multiple times." Yep, but it doesn't matter. Since @James Earl Cash consider you a weaselly little shit, there's no way you are gonna stop this edit war talking with him. I suggest to call the moderators. --Lankaster (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lankaster That sounds like a sensible suggestion.
@Bongolian, @CheeseburgerFace, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, and @Spud, sorry to bother you guys, but we appear to have an irreconcilable dispute over here. Please take a look at this conversation thread and the page's history. Thank you! Nerd (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Suits me fine boys, although typical of y'all to narc to the mods when you outright refuse to debate in good faith. I will say, if nothing else comes of this dispute in my favor, that it is telling Nerd gets along just dandy with a literal fucking fascist like Lankaster. You can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep, and man oh man, he does not disappoint. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Can all interested parties simply write here how they want the statement to be for the moderators to evaluate. Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright.
Trump ordered an FBI investigation, but then made sure nothing happened by limiting the scope and time of the investigation. He was "finally" sworn in after the second shortest confirmation process in recent history. note ref
Note: You only need to take a look at KaganWikipedia's W.svg and Sotomayor'sWikipedia's W.svg delays to see a true example of the staunch liberal media in action
Sorry for the subsection with the note appearing down below, I don't know how to edit that out to look more palatable but that is one of the parts Nerd takes issue with and I feel it prudent to include it if only because of that. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
And now the note section isn't coming up despite being visible when I checked to preview changes. Weird. I went ahead and included it anyway. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian This is my preferred version. You can also find it as the version before Cash's most recent revision.

His confirmation hearing was delayed due to multiple accusations of sexual misconduct. Trump ordered an [[FBI]] investigation,<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45687301 Brett Kavanaugh: Trump's Supreme Court pick faces FBI inquiry]. BBC News. September 29, 2018.</ref> but then limited its time and scope.<ref name="Hill">[https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/410281-dem-senator-kavanaugh-confirmation-underscores-healthcare-mueller Dem senator: Kavanaugh confirmation 'underscores' health care, Mueller investigation as key midterm issues]. ''The Hill''. October 7, 2018. </ref> He was sworn in after a weeks-long political battle and a nomination hearing that involved a testimony by a woman accusing him of sexual assault.<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45774174 Brett Kavanaugh confirmation: Victory for Trump in Supreme Court battle]. BBC. October 7, 2018. </ref><ref group="note">However, his nomination process was short compared to what Justices {{wpl|Elena Kagan}} and {{wpl|Sonia Sotomayor}} had to go through. </ref> (More below)

Nerd (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that you stated the facts and gave references, @Nerd, and that aspect makes it better than @James Earl Cash's version. However, comparing the nomination battles so dryly between Kavanaugh vs. Kagan and Sotomayor does not do justice to the reality of the nomination. The Republicans were clearly intent on ramming Kavanaugh through no matter what he did or what he was accused of. The history of Republican obstructionism is also rather transparent dating back to Newt Gingrich and continuing into Mitch McConnell as it was most recently reflected in McConnell's total obstruction of the Obama Presidency, and specifically of the Neil Gorsuch nomination. We are not Wikipedia after all, we do more than just state facts. Other moderators are welcome to weigh in on this before we come to a conclusion on this. Bongolian (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Bongolian. "Let the facts speak for themselves" is a good mantra to follow (hence why why we removed Category:Batshit insane and Category:Insufferable assholes) but I don't see the problem of a little editorializing here. I've said this before while arguing a ton with Lankaster: we should try to make meaning of facts rather than dryly present the information (that's Wikipedia's job). I've made the case of presenting our opinion like a thesis statement in an article: an arguable statement supported by facts. I think we have to include Republicans acting dishonest and partisan or else I fear that's not going to present a complete picture. Hence I do think James Earl Cash presented a good example to go by when it comes to dishonest people and court proceedings, but if anyone can point out the flaws between the example James Early Cash was bringing up and today's example, this will be appreciated. After all, I requested James Earl Cash to elaborate on his parallels between this and the previous trials and he has done so, which I thought would improve the article by being more informative, but maybe that was tangent-y to some? Also, @James Earl Cash I really think you should keep dishonesty stuff to a minimum at least to Nerd. I think Nerd is pretty cooperative and more civil so he gets my benefit of the doubt. I didn't find his "smarmyness" all that bad when he said I mispelled "aktually" earlier (that was intentional but promptly forgot to reply).
But if this concerns solely the opening paragraph, then I do agree that we should keep it fairly concise and to the point and have the editorializing somewhere in the body of the article. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I did have references in my version when I copypasta'd it from the main page @Bongolian, but when I went to the preview page, it showed a separate cutoff box which included them in a footnote fashion like at the end of any article, which I thought was looked down upon here, so I took them out. Am I mistaken in that assumption?
@LeftyGreenMariore: my dispute with Nerd, I'll shake hands with him and put this matter behind me, I was able to do that with Ariel even despite all the times we've quarreled, but at the same time I really don't like it when people ignore my arguments and continue to talk past me. It's been raised numerous times that we don't just spell out the facts but he continued to push that forth repeatedly and he even took out my footnote about the ex-boyfriend's letter and the comparison I made between other big trials despite Spud earlier supporting it. As well, my suggestion is hardly that much of a partisan attack, and he even objects to using Vox as a source. I can't help but think he was pushing an agenda when being neutral on someone like Kavanaugh is the definition of having an ulterior motive. For the record, I don't like tagging the mods and especially Fuzzy to arbitrate disputes either, especially something as minor as this. That's why I was hoping I could keep it between the two of us. James Earl Cash (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash I rewrote that part in order to reflect what the source actually says. I noted that in the edit summary. It is a good idea to call in the mods if disputes cannot be resolved bilaterally. I would appreciate it if you could tone down your accusations. Just because I disagree with you on certain things or because I would like this article to be less pointed does not mean I have some sort of "ulterior motives."
Thank you for your inputs, @Bongolian and @LeftyGreenMario. @CheeseburgerFace, @CowHouse, and @DiamondDisc1, would you guys like to weigh in? Nerd (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian and @LeftyGreenMario I suppose this means you guys prefer Cash's version, then. Very well. I will leave it as it is. I have only made minor changes to the lead section in order to reflect the fact that the 2018 midterm elections have passed. Nerd (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's right. Bongolian (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Ford's Ex-BF[edit]

So Dr Ford has an ex boyfriend who contradicts some of her claims.

  1. that she has indeed prepared others for a polygraph test.
  2. that her crippling fear of flying never manifested itself on their numerous vacations.
  3. that her need to always have a room with a second door never was an issue in their 500 sq ft apartment. Source.

How should we incorporate this into the article?

It's entirely possible that the boyfriend is lying. Or that Ford forgot about the polygraph and that her claustrophobia was caused by later events in life and the alleged groping incident was just one in a list of things that she had to deal with (because seriously, who goes into therapy because they were groped once?). Or something else entirely.

Ford's case had merit, but her testimony alone along with some old therapy notes that don't mention Kavanaugh by name wouldn't be enough for any DA to get a conviction, even if Barto wasn't a white frat boy. Nor is it to say that Brett isn't a terrible choice for the Supreme Court. CoryUsar (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@CorruptUser "How should we incorporate this into the article?"
What do you think of this?
On October 2, in a letter to Fox News, an unnamed man who claim to be have been in a relationship with Ford from approximately 1992 to 1998, contradicts some of her claims. In particular, he says that he "witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam."(ref Ford ex-boyfriend declaration) contrary to Ford testimony that she never discuss with anyone, besides her attorneys, how to take a polygraph.(ref Kavanaugh's hearing: Transcript "MITCHELL: Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph? FORD: Never.") In a statement released by Ford's lawyers, Monica McLean, the woman referred to in the letter, denied having been advised by Ford.(ref Christine Blasey Ford’s Friend Says Ford Didn’t Coach Her On Polygraph Exam)
I cited the original letter of the ex-boyfriend, and the response of Ford's laywers. --Lankaster (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This is close to victim blaming if not outright is, and about as reputable as what went on in the OJ and Casey Anthony cases. Keep that shit in the gutter where it belongs. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
How is this victim blaming, or close to it? If the letter is a forgery, it's obstruction of justice or something worse. If the letter is true, it shows that Ford is being dishonest in her claims.
Victim blaming would be "she was a teenage girl at some boys' party, she knew what she was there for". CoryUsar (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it's closer to victim blaming like when you bring up someone's sexual history in court when they were attacked at random. The crux of the matter is that we don't know, and all other things considered, as it stands the thing is irrelevant. Look at Lankaster's unaffected response, someone whose only concern is to include Fox News trash in the same light as being reputable. For crying out loud, stuff like this is attacking Ford for the sake of attacking her, and completely ignores all of Kavanaugh's problems. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
On his wikipedia page, under notable rulings, I struggle to find a ruling of his that I agree with. The guy is against net neutrality, thinks the second amendment applies to virtually all guns for everyone, opposes the ACA, and ruled to restrict abortion. The least awful ruling was when he forced the opening of a toxic waste dump (Yucca mountain; it's complicated and we kind of need the thing but even if he did the right thing it was for the wrong reasons). The guy is friggen awful. I ain't ignoring his problems.
But his shitty career as a shitty judge hasn't been the main topic on the news... CoryUsar (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
When I say that bringing up Ford's credibility with sketchy sources like this ignores Kavanaugh, I mean it's tantamount to whatabout-ism. Kavanaugh himself has proven that his character in doubt, charitably speaking. There is zero reason to look at his accusers with a critical eye from dubious sources and trying to say otherwise slants the article in his favor when the man hasn't earned it. James Earl Cash (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash As I figured, your removed the paragraph about the ex-boyfriend letter. Your motivation is: "sketchy garbage that is speculation at best and tabloid nonsense at worst" I'm not gonna put it back now, because I bet you will accuse me of edit warring and you will lock the page. So I ask the opinion of moderators @Bongolian, @CheeseburgerFace,@CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, @Spud:
Is what I wrote "sketchy garbage that is speculation at best and tabloid nonsense at worst" ? --Lankaster (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I notice you didn't even dispute my points here in the talk page before adding in a bunch of unverified claims from the intellectual hot spot of Fox News. You are clearly not interested in fairness or debate, and only in getting your way, quality be damned. Next we're gonna start praising Infowars supplements. James Earl Cash (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but the section about the ex-boyfriend's letter was reasonably well referenced and did not have to be removed. Spud (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Is it at all relevant though? Again, it's speculation, and is really up in the air to whether if it's even true or not. When it was raised through first coming from Fox News, hoo boy, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. James Earl Cash (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I ask how well-circulated in the media this is. I'm not sure about including information at least until after this stuff can be verified. Not sure if adding information and just saying "well this isn't confirmed" is going to help if information still turns out false, misleading, irrelevant because people on the internet can't read. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "I'm not sure about including information at least until after this stuff can be verified." The information are (1) Fox News received a letter from a man who claimed to be a ex-boyfriend of Ford source (2) In the letter the man says Ford prepared McLean to a polygraph test source (3) Ford said under oath that she never discuss with anyone except her attorneys how to take a polygraph source (4) McLean denied having been advised by Ford source. These information are all verified. --Lankaster (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about if the letter is a forgery or not. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this honestly feels like talk about Hillary Clinton's emails in the 2016 US presidential election. Even if it were somehow verified and the contents were true, I'm still wary on where we'd begin to put this. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "I'm talking about if the letter is a forgery or not." We don't know. But the fact that it has been sent and published is relevant to this story. At least because of its consequences, not only McLean statement, but also: "As a result of the ex-boyfriend's statement, Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to Ford's legal team demanding it turn over materials that would corroborate her allegations, including therapist notes from 2012 during a session in which Ford discussed the alleged assault. "Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination,"...Ford's lawyers released a statement on Wednesday afternoon that said they would provide the materials Grassley requested if the FBI contacts and interviews her." source and then it can be also mentioned that the FBI did not interview Ford. --Lankaster (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
How does that fit into the Kavanaugh article at all? We aren't here to do an in-depth review of the court proceedings of each of his accusers, we're here to cover Kavanaugh himself. In addition, it would be article bloat. We didn't cover all the details and an in-depth review of the methodology the FBI investigation used bit by bit, we included what mattered, and what we should be doing is covering a lot of Kavanaugh's policies in his career as a judge that CoryUsar mentioned above. Let's cover what's relevant here. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@James Earl Cash Come on James... you are being ridiculous. Of course you cannot write that Fox News is a cesspit and call to a parallel to Casey Anthony and OJ trials "shenanigans". Well, unless you want to sound like anything but a person looking objectively at the facts. By the way, you wrote "this information has yet to be verified" just after McLean's statement, so that it seemed that McLean's statement had to be verified (which of course it is not your intention). Do you want to precise that the authenticity the letter has to be verified? OK, but be cool. --Lankaster (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course I can write that. What the hell makes you think I can't? Also, the context speaks for itself, meaning any (astute) reader should be able to identify what exactly is being referred to as shenanigans. You want to include this tabloid garbage in the main article, you better believe I'm going to include a disclaimer denouncing it for what it is. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario The letter to Fox News aside, the so-called ex-boyfriend testified in private to the senate committee and seems to have endorsed the contents of the letter, as reported by the NY Times, Oct. 3. We also know his name. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That just seems to further put this in the category of tabloid nonsense. Again, this is about as relevant as the garbage that went down in the Casey Anthony and OJ cases. For anyone seriously interested in defending Kavanaugh (fuck knows why though), that is the last category you want to put his hearing in. Stick to the man himself. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Thanks for the info. I have added his name, but where did you read that "testified in private to the senate committee and seems to have endorsed the contents of the letter"? --Lankaster (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Lankaster. I assumed the cited letter concerned the 3 points mentioned at the top of this thread. These are all asserted in the Times article.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
My feeling would be to include the thing but not make much further comment until we get more information. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
"you better believe I'm going to include a disclaimer denouncing it for what it is. " That's a disclaimer denouncing what you think it is. --Lankaster (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
No shit I think that chief, my thinking it and that disclaimer being absolutely fucking true have no relevance except that I have a good nose for what's right.
But still, do tell, what kind of spin would you put on this to convince someone it absolutely is not that? All ears. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Stop edit warring. --Lankaster (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
At least you've dropped all pretense of being anything other than ideologically motivated. Respond to my points or fuck off. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The witches[edit]

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)

@Anna Livia 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)
@Anna Livia "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).
@Ikanreed 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)
@Ikanreed "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[edit]

So, again, me and @James Earl Cash disagree about a section. Here is the version I propose:

On October 2, in a letter to Fox News, a man whose name was redacted claimed to be have been in a relationship with Ford from approximately 1992 to 1998, contradicts some of her claims. In particular, he says that he "witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam." contrary to Ford testimony that she never discuss with anyone, besides her attorneys, how to take a polygraph. The man has later been identified by CNN as Brian Merrick. The accuracy of the content of the letter has not been verified. In a statement released by Ford's lawyers, Monica McLean, the woman referred to in the letter, denied having been advised by Ford.

and there is the version he proposes:

On October 2, in a letter to Fox News, a man whose name was redacted claimed to be have been in a relationship with Ford from approximately 1992 to 1998, contradicts some of her claims. In particular, he says that he "witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam." contrary to Ford testimony that she never discuss with anyone, besides her attorneys, how to take a polygraph. The man has later been identified by CNN as Brian Merrick. In a statement released by Ford's lawyers, Monica McLean, the woman referred to in the letter, denied having been advised by Ford. Surprising no one however is that this information has yet to be verified on its accuracy, if coming from the cesspit of Fox News wasn't already a big red flag, making it about as legit as the shenanigans that went down during the Casey Anthony and OJ trials until further notice. NOTE: To be more precise, "old friends" of accusers popping up to discredit them sounds a tad too reminiscent of Jose Baez and Johnny Cochran's rush to blame the police in spite of all the evidence against their defendants, to say nothing of the bloated personal stories and excuses of trauma that were brought into the picture which sought to exonerate their defendants' unambiguously sketchy behavior. 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, and how Anthony's defense team tried to deliberately cancel the trial a little less than a week when it ended by questioning her competence, all akin to the FBI investigation of the sex abuse claims being gutted instead of exhausted thoroughly.

Since there no way we are gonna reach an agreement, I leave to mods or others the decision @Bongolian, @CheeseburgerFace, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, @Spud. --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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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)
@Nerd 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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario 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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll put back the footnote. Nerd (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "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[edit]

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"[edit]

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? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree with @LeftyGreenMario. Nerd (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Unlock request[edit]

@Bongolian, 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)

@Nerd, 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)
@Bongolian Thank you! Nerd (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Judicial Precedent is not the same thing as "Appeal to Tradition"[edit]

However, it should be noted that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

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)