Joe Biden was the first person to argue that no SC should be nominated in an election year.

Democrats were the ones who enacted or put into place the 51 votes rule instead of the classic 60 rule.

I wonder how you'd react if your life was about to be ruined and your family's lives were threatened by political agenda and false and unproven allegation.  Let's not cherry pick the high emotional responses brought upon under ill circumstances over the years of impeccable service.

There is a difference between false and unproven.

Similarly, I wonder how you'd feel if someone who had committed a serious crime against you was about to gain a significant position of power/success. You spoke out against them, and they dragged you through the mud, branded you a liar and got off scot free.

There is a difference between false and unproven.

Similarly, I wonder how you'd feel if someone who had committed a serious crime against you was about to gain a significant position of power/success. You spoke out against them, and they dragged you through the mud, branded you a liar and got off scot free.

That's not what Biden said.  He said in June of 1992 that if a SC position needed to be filled that it should wait until after the election so that it doesn't interfere with the RNC, DNC, etc...

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Mitch McConnell just twisted the hell out of what he said to make it look like Biden said no to a nominee in an election year.  In other words, Biden was fine with Bush getting to nominate his choice, he just didn't want that process creating further problems before the elections took place. 

First of all, are you capable of commenting without generalizing people under positions they've never once held in their life?
It would be nice if you and people like yourself would refrain from constantly doing that, as it does nothing but waste the time of people having to defend themselves from a position they never held in the first place.

If you ever saw me say say something specific, call me out on it. If not, don't do this BS where you're assuming that everyone you talk to is of the same cookiecutter mindset you've convinced yourself of. It's incredibly toxic.

I've never once said "women are all credible". And not only because that's an idiotic statement. I've said "accusers should be heard."
But thanks for assuming otherwise.

As for the accusation you link to, that's an alleged former boyfriend that someone told the New York Times is a man named Brian Merrick. Get back to me when a man with that name comes forward, testifies under oath, or passes a polygraph test, which is what she did about Kavanaugh. Because a statement from someone who may or may not be who NYT's source thinks he is, is not the equivalent of a polygraph test and a testimony under oath. Especially when his story is contested by the person she supposedly helped.

What's your criteria for believing this alleged boyfriend? Because my criteria was pretty simple. Those who take and pass the most accurate type of polygraph, and those who ask for an FBI investigation look much more credible than those who refuse to take a polygraph (even after speaking very highly of them previously) and oppose an FBI investigation every time they're asked.


^Kavanaugh's words.

Not to mention him obviously committing perjury by claiming Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, among other things. And he's a judge. Who seemingly thinks it's ok to lie under oath. But it's ok to have a supreme court justice who doesn't give two shits about the oath? And it's not the first time he seemingly lied under oath, which is a criminal offense. Two other occasions were discovered in the hundreds of thousand pages of documents that the GOP didn't want Democrats to read until 15 hours before the hearing. And a criminal investigation into this was initiated in Washington, but as you know the GOP were not interested in waiting for the outcome of it, but decided to push him through as soon as possible as their candidate regardless of that.
And it was several GOP members own words that Ford was credible overall.

And regardless of previous FBI investigations, once she stepped forward with this allegation, took a polygraph, and other former classmates of his started talking about how they remember another woman claiming he pressed his junk in her face at a party, which sparked another investigation and accusation, Kavanaugh would always refer to "whatever the committee wants to do" whenever he was asked if the FBI should investigate these charges. And as was well known, the committee made it perfectly clear that they saw no need for an FBI investigation. If I were innocent I would beg for an FBI investigation. He instead chose to make himself look infinitely more suspicious in front of millions of Americans and people overseas.
And when asked to take the polygraph that he previously explained serve law enforcement to deem not only the credibility of witnesses, but also who is suited for critical law enforcement positions, both of which are relevant in this case, he suddenly doesn't want to and says they are unreliable.

Yeah that's not a bad look when your accuser passes the polygraph and asks for an investigation, and you do the opposite. Remove all the politics, and everyone would think the same.

As for Ford, it's possible she may not have been truthful about some details. Just like Kavanaugh seemingly lied about things like the meaning of certain words to appear to be different than he actually was, I can understand the reasoning behind that. But she is not a fedaral judge lying under oath. And when it comes to the events she described, which is that Kavanaugh pulled her into a room, turned up the music and covered her mouth while trying to remove her clothes, she passed the most accurate type of polygraph, according to the former FBI agent who administered it. That, along with calling for an FBI investigation weighs a lot more than dodging polygraphs and opposing an investigation.

No. And I believe this is a detail a lot of people are going to miss, even though it's specified in the article. I'll tag anyone else I see in this post later.

“that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original Jane Doe letter.”"

This allegation came from an anonymous letter under the name 'Jane Doe'.
Later on, someone claiming to be Jane Doe stepped forward. But she made that up. She was not the person who sent that letter.
Whoever Jane Doe is, we still don't know.

Another woman by the name of Deborah Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh pushed his junk in her face at a party. This accusation did not originate from herself, but former classmates of theirs started discussing this incident around the time Dr Ford stepped forward. They said they remembered people at their school talking about this at the time it happened. Investigators contacted Ramirez to ask if it was true, and she said it was.
However, there's no evidence that it took place. Only that people at the time remember talking about it.

Then there's Julie Swetnick who's claim is currently under investigation.

So to summarize, right now the only accusation that is proven to be false is the one from the woman claiming to be Jane Doe, even though she wasn't.
This isn't really a case where you can prove things one way or another though.

No. And I believe this is a detail a lot of people are going to miss, even though it's specified in the article. I'll tag anyone else I see in this post later.

“that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original Jane Doe letter.”"

This allegation came from an anonymous letter under the name 'Jane Doe'.
Later on, someone claiming to be Jane Doe stepped forward. But she made that up. She was not the person who sent that letter.
Whoever Jane Doe is, we still don't know.

Another woman by the name of Deborah Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh pushed his junk in her face at a party. This accusation did not originate from herself, but former classmates of theirs started discussing this incident around the time Dr Ford stepped forward. They said they remembered people at their school talking about this at the time it happened. Investigators contacted Ramirez to ask if it was true, and she said it was.
However, there's no evidence that it took place. Only that people at the time remember talking about it.

Then there's Julie Swetnick who's claim is currently under investigation.

So to summarize, right now the only accusation that is proven to be false is the one from the woman claiming to be Jane Doe, even though she wasn't.
This isn't really a case where you can prove things one way or another though.