"According to reports, Dolphin had initially been one of 65 women to endorse Kavanaugh after the sexual assault allegations came to light from Christine Blasey Ford. Dolphin withdrew her endorsement after Ford's accusation came to light."

https://abc7chicago.com/politics/brett-kavanaugh-explains-devils-triangle-other-yearbook-references-/4354071/

“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html

So now that you know she took her name from the endorsement and that she thinks the insinuation is horrible and hurtful can we agree on the obvious?

and what is your conclusion?

His legal justification more often than not is simply believing that the EPA is overstepping their boundaries which isn't really surprising. My problem with that is he regularly attempts to limit how the EPA can adapt to changing information. We're talking about science here, policies and information that were created in the 80s and 90s simply aren't as accurate or efficient as we once believed it to be. The case involving hydrofluorocarbons is a prime example of this because in the 90s they were seen as the solution to what could potentially be a massive environmental issue but thanks to our evolving understanding of the chemical we now know that it is a horrible pollutant in its own right. When you're dealing with a topic that relies on scientific research there needs to be a level of fluidity involved in the policy making process simply because the topic itself isn't static.

The Renate Alumnius thing is a bit of a red herring. No one seriously thinks that the confirmation turns on it.

One thing I would say is that this discussion can get tied up in knots if people try to play amateur sleuth or say “he's lying because he lost his temper” or “she's lying because she was too cool”. The fact is that we don't know either way there is likely to be doubt at the end of the process, because this is the real world and not an episode of Elementary. The question is whether we can live under the shadow of a doubt, and the Supreme Court has functioned with Clarence Thomas on it these many years.

If doubt is removed then it will be a different matter.

LOL she also changed the story how many people were at the party, in her letter to Feinstein she said "The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others." This is 5 people.

But in her testimony she said 4 boys and 2 girls so total of 6 people. She has made several other changes to her story but I'm not american and don't wanna write a wall of text.

Basically Kavanaugh was just about to completely bust her story in his opening statement but because of all the small changes she made to her story during her hearing (house location, how the house looked inside and changing story how many people were in the house) he failed :). Take also into account how Ford also changed the timeline when this assault happened.

Anyway I would say it's 95% chance Ford just completely made up this story and it's shameful how the media in USA it's not picking it up.

Do I have the decency? What an asshole thing to say. I don't recall including any personal attacks to you in my post. 

Anyways, he said the seniors were legal and had beer there. Far as I've read he wrong about the drinking age and in that quote he implies that he did not partake. Regardless, however, what I'd like to hear is something beyond this scripted "I had great respect for all my female friends". Just admit you were a dumb high school kid that wanted to be seen as cool so you claimed to do more things sexually than you actually had accomplished and bragged about it in an attempt to improve your social standing. Everyone was a dumb High School kid at some point, but this tired lying about all the things he regrets. Admitting you drank a bit helps, as he did in his testimony, but if you're going to keep pretending like you never were a little misogynist piece of shit (and regret it) then you're still lying to everyone. 

Kavanaugh dug up his calendar from 1982 and insisted it proved he only drank beer on the weekends and there is literally an entry showing him drinking beer, on a weekday, w/the same people Ford said were there when she was sexually assaulted. We have to dig deeper.

Maybe you should tell that to the people who have already decided that he is 100% guilty of what he is accused of. And i think it's a little bit silly to compare my statement that is a farce with he is a rapist that needs to be locked up, one is far more serious. I think it's a farce, OK? If you don't then that's your opinion and you are free to have it

Yes, should continue, unless evidence becomes incontrovertible, in which case the White House would pull his nomination, and Kavanaugh would become subject to criminal proceedings. Unless that happens, our system is innocent until proven guilty. We can't just go around and accuse people of things and then have their lives be ruined without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The alternative is complete and total lawlessness.

I should add that this issue has become politicized, and it's between two groups of people with two different philosophies.  If you're a Democrat, Kavanaugh is a rapist who shouldn't be confirmed.  If you're a Republican, Kavanaugh is innocent and this woman was pulled out of the woodwork at the eleventh hour, in a desperate bid to stop Kavanaugh being confirmed.  This is a person's personal and professional life at stake, whether you agree with his textualist Constitutional philosophical interpretation or you disagree with it.  That has nothing to do with whether he sexually assaulted someone when he was eighteen at a college party.  

We need to keep level heads about this, and be careful how we proceed.  People are letting their personal political philosophy and agenda get in the way of their judgement, and that is not good.

Uh, witness testimony isn't evidence? Not sure if serious or just incredibly ignorant to what constitutes evidence in a court of law in the United States.

At no point has the FBI investigated these allegations, so stating that the 7th will be pretty quick is downright asinine on your behalf. 

Prototypical Kavanaugh supporter. Ignore reason, ignore evidence, just nod head in agreement.

Kavanaugh admitted to drinking in excess but seems to think it's possible to have no lapses in memory. These two things do not jive, it's basic science.

What type of weirdo saves a calendar for 30 years? It's as if he suspected this day would come.

Kavanaugh lied about his connections to Yale, lied about his upbringing which was anything but difficult, and dodged every question he was asked.

There are people in this thread who are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading people and using a pragmatic approach to analyzing the *facts* of this case.

The most likely scenario is that Booze-boy Bart was hammered, forgot the night in question and that's why he can deny it with a clean conscience. But we've seen that he doesn't give a shit about a clean conscience and lied under oath repeatedly so even if he did remember lying is completely within his character.

Let's get a nominee who isn't being accused of sexual assault by multiple women, one of which was completely credible and has nothing to gain from this experience.