Apparently that Kavanaugh statement (linked in Hasen tweet above) was signed by 47 of 60 YLS professors.

Conservatives may be able to pack the courts, but they still suck at academia.

"Rape accuser white knights" is some bold **** right there. You gonna make "supportive of rape vitcims" seem like a bad thing?

While there is some limited subset of secular women who may oppose abortion under some circumstances, I doubt they make that position one of the bedrock principles through which they view the moral landscape of the world, such that it's more like an axiom rather than another harm to weigh in some broader cost-benefit analysis when considering policy options.

But yeah Whelan didn't talk to anyone at WH before that tweetstorm

Lol

Although the chances she is lying is tiny, the chances that she would have refrained from coming forward if the nominee was someone she was happy with isn't. Politics, unlike the hard sciences and math is all about using or not using arguments that will achieve your goal because achieving those goals depends on persuading people who can't think. As more and more people fall into that category and more and more bad people are elected because of their persuasive abilities rather than their governing abilities, there will eventually be a push to ferret out those non thinkers via some device similar to what we do to make sure that those who drive cars at least read a driver's manual. Then you will all owe me an apology.

lol

Did Sklansky really just posit that a woman would be fine with having not just an attempted rapist but her attempted rapist on the Supreme Court as long as they were in agreement on ideology?

DS’s definition of “people who can’t think” doesn’t include people who cite sources of information without knowing anything about the credibility of that source

As usual, the thought experiment is punctured by reality. Roy Moore's accusers were mostly Republicans iirc. The main one, Leigh Corfmann, definitely was.

Where are all of those reasonable thinkin' man's Beltway conservatives on this? Turns out they're dishing up "game theory" solutions over at The Weekly Standard. ****ing spoiler alert, but the optimal play for all parties is to rubber stamp a MORE CONSERVATIVE justice than Kavanaugh. QED

<Bill Kristol sipping single malt in a burgundy leather lounger and gently nodding as he thumbs through his signed copy of DUCY?.gif>

Is there any way to view these now? I want to see how much it resembles this:

No. I said that in this particular 36 year old case the chances that she would have refrained was not tiny. I didn't say she would be "fine" with him or that she wouldn't have come forward if the allegations were more recent or part of a pattern or even more serious. Or even that she probably wouldn't have come forward.

I am going out on a limb here.

I dont think victims of sexual assault are thinking about political ideology when they look at the perpetrator.

David, given your personal history...maybe this is not the best subject for you to be giving your opinion on. That is the definition of "telling on yourself."

OK, let's just allow that there's a chance she would have kept quiet IF she agreed with Kav politically.

So what? Finish the thought.

I doubt she would have been a big fan of Roy Moore regardless. In any case my post had almost nothing to do with the sexual assault charges except to use it as an example that highlights the bigger issue about moron persuader experts that people want to pretend isn't a giant growing problem.

You put forth your idea based on no particular about this case other than its age, and you put it forth like the change in the probability is significant. You also blame that change in probability on strictly internal factors (as opposed to things like Democrats being less smearing than Republicans or the like). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that you expect most women dealing with older rape cases to be substantially more fine with their sexual assailants based strictly on ideology.

I find your writing style opaque. Perhaps I am not following. Can you please fill out the following form?

My Claim Is: [Clear and Concise Statement] ___________

My Justification/Support For This Claim Is: ____________

This Matters Because: __________

Thanks.

It's pretty amazing that his argument gives lip service to "yeah, the integrity of the court shouldn't be besmirched by things like having attempted rapists on it" but only as a side effect of "...but look at all the partisan gain we'll achieve by booting Kavanaugh!"

That is still inaccurate. Meanwhile I don't even disagree with a woman basing her decision on ideology. My post wasn't even about that. It was about the continued reluctance of people here to admit that politics has become more and more about manipulating non thinking voters.

wait what's the "giant growing problem," exactly?

Do you actually read this forum?

since ... ?