Believe Accusers!

[Xzi]

Looks like "Devil's Triangle" was a (drinking?) game after all. Not, as Vox and others claimed, a reference to a two man / one woman threesome.

That's not a claim made up by Vox, it's been the common definition of the phrase for decades. Think about it: "Devil's triangle" = two "horns."

Now, they might've had a different usage for it back then, but I don't see how claiming it as a game where the participants drink to excess really helps Kavanaugh's case. His college roommate has already called him a violent drunk.

 

[kingfrost]

No judge, lawyer, prosecutor, or the police can order and make someone take a polygraph test.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html

Police regularly pressure people into taking polygraphs. It's a known practice. You can argue that legally it's not required but neither are a lot of things police make it seen like you have to do.

Also not that in a few states they are only admissible if both parties agree, which is still pointless, a few are inadmissible, and in federal courts, which Kavanaugh served in they are admissible mainly as determined by the judge.

So I stand by what I said, they are regularly used in the courts and by police.

As for the quote of me saying he clearly says he's legal to drink, that's my mistake and many many others. The fact that multiple belief he said that, on all sides of this debate, should go to show just how obfuscating his testimony was. He clearly attempts to couch his own illegal activity in the fact that some of them were illegal.

Or in the fact he was an athlete.

Looks like "Devil's Triangle" was a (drinking?) game after all. Not, as Vox and others claimed, a reference to a two man / one woman threesome.

From Kavanaugh's yearbook that got leaked today, these guys ALL list their participation in "Devil's Triangle." The first guy's reference to it actually says he "Lost at Devil's Triangle." Now, there might have been a lot of partying going on at Kavanaugh's high school ... but what's more credible? That this many guys all double-teamed girls before they even had a h.s. diploma in their hand?, or that they came up with a drinking game at parties, gave it a cool name, and it was epic?

High school and sometimes college too is full of tight cliques and inside jokes.

So now we get to apply equal standards right? If thus is exonerating proof why didn't he already release it? If it was listed in multiple one's of his friends yearbook and he knew this, why not mention that in his tantrum?

It's almost like this was made for a specific purpose, like proving more cover to a certain nominee. Mind you, I'm not accusing, just supposing what could have happened by the suspicious way we have acquired this new information.

 

[osaka35]

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html

Police regularly pressure people into taking polygraphs. It's a known practice. You can argue that legally it's not required but neither are a lot of things police make it seen like you have to do.

Also not that in a few states they are only admissible if both parties agree, which is still pointless, a few are inadmissible, and in federal courts, which Kavanaugh served in they are admissible mainly as determined by the judge.

So I stand by what I said, they are regularly used in the courts and by police.

As for the quote of me saying he clearly says he's legal to drink, that's my mistake and many many others. The fact that multiple belief he said that, on all sides of this debate, should go to show just how obfuscating his testimony was. He clearly attempts to couch his own illegal activity in the fact that some of them were illegal.

Or in the fact he was an athlete.

Your link says they are used by police as leverage. They don't actually use them to collect evidence. They use it as a scare tactic in order to gain other evidence. It also says that the courts don't like them, and in several states they are summarily rejected as evidence.

The reason why is because they're unreliable. They can only tell you changes in certain body stuff like heart rate and blood pressure. guessing whether those translate into a lie or not is completely subjectional and is far too susceptible to the personality of the one reading the polygraph. They're used, but they shouldn't be. They can say whatever the expert you picked is willing to say, which isn't evidence; it's opinion.

Just one of those antiquated things we're moving away from

 

[kingfrost]

Your link says they are used by police as leverage. They don't actually use them to collect evidence. They use it as a scare tactic in order to gain other evidence. It also says that the courts don't like them, and in several states they are summarily rejected as evidence.

The reason why is because they're unreliable. They can only tell you changes in certain body stuff like heart rate and blood pressure. guessing whether those translate into a lie or not is completely subjectional and is far too susceptible to the personality of the one reading the polygraph. They're used, but they shouldn't be. They can say whatever the expert you picked is willing to say, which isn't evidence; it's opinion.

Just one of those antiquated things we're moving away from

That doesn't change the fact they are used and that if you refuse to take one, it can color the response from police and some judges toward you as being guilty. I never said they were effective, nor do I even think they are.

Just because you're "woke" about polygraphs, doesn't mean everyone is. Just because less than 20% of states have laws about about the admissibility of them, and about half that simply that both sides must agree doesn't mean they aren't used.

And even in this situation, it was a formality before a hearing in front of congress who at that time had refused to have any other investigation of the claims done. It's not like anyone said, she passed the polygraph, let's execute him.

It was simply part of a process, and being used in much the same way law enforcement still uses them.

Edit: I would also like to clarify my position. I don't know whether she was assaulted by him or not. I do know that this will be used in the future as proof to discredit sexual accusations against politicians for years and years to come.

I don't absolve, as I've posted many times, the Democrats or the Republicans from their part in this process. I have pointed out many times multiple ways that both have propagated sexual assault and harassment.

I don't care if Brent Kavanaugh is confirmed because I have hope in the checks and balances that are supposed to operate in my government. The Supreme Court does not exist to make laws. There should be not victory or defeat in this process, and I think it's a sad state of affairs that the past few confirmations have become this Swamp of politics.

I do, however, think that a Justice of the Supreme Court ranting under oath and in public about unproven political conspiracy is extremely dangerous when a portion of the electorate believes that the President is in a super secret fight with pedophiles because of 4chan.

 

[osaka35]

That doesn't change the fact they are used and that if you refuse to take one, it can color the response from police and some judges toward you as being guilty. I never said they were effective, nor do I even think they are.

Just because you're "woke" about polygraphs, doesn't mean everyone is. Just because less than 20% of states have laws about about the admissibility of them, and about half that simply that both sides must agree doesn't mean they aren't used.

And even in this situation, it was a formality before a hearing in front of congress who at that time had refused to have any other investigation of the claims done. It's not like anyone said, she passed the polygraph, let's execute him.

It was simply part of a process, and being used in much the same way law enforcement still uses them.

Which I suppose shows how poorly educated our police force and judges can be, I suppose. You don't have to be smart or informed to be a judge or police officer. By the same token, if you're black and a police officer thinks that means you're far more likely to be guilty, we most definitely shouldn't be using that as a reason to support more of that behaviour. Call it out when it happens, acknowledge it happens, but certainly never accept its usage. It may colour their perception of things, but it should never be allowed to stand, ya know? I don't think we disagree, though, fairly sure we're mostly on the same page, just felt like clarifying.

 

[kingfrost]

Which I suppose shows how poorly educated our police force and judges can be, I suppose. You don't have to be smart or informed to be a judge or police officer. By the same token, if you're black and a police officer thinks that means you're far more likely to be guilty, we most definitely shouldn't be using that as a reason to support more of that behaviour. Call it out when it happens, acknowledge it happens, but certainly never accept its usage. It may colour their perception of things, but it should never be allowed to stand, ya know? I don't think we disagree, though, fairly sure we're mostly on the same page, just felt like clarifying.

We absolutely are. I suppose the only thing I'm pointing out is that they are still used. I don't believe they should be.

Most of my argument has been that this isn't even a sexual accusation case. It's a political process and both sides have used the sexual assault charges as a sort of political proxy for the things their side wants to see.

In pointing out mistakes Kavanuagh made in testimony, I hope to show that they were intentional. We can see how he didn't have to say he drunk illegally because his supporters emphasize with that and will defend him. Neither of them have provided has an airtight testimony but I didn't expect that anyone.

I think that using this case to somehow apply to all sexual assault accusations will lead to more harm than good. For that matter, I do think people get too invested in a public facade and think they actually know a person as well.

Most of all, to pretend this isn't political for both parties is to miss the political freak show currently going on in our capital. Both parties have resorted to new lows since 2016.

 

[FAST6191]

I am finding this debate over the drinking age and the... moral implications of a 16+ year old maybe deigning to drink some booze almost as hilarious as the time I went on Chinese chat rooms and they were discussing how bad porn is.

I should also note "blacked out" has some considerable time spent on its definition and meaning in the court system, something quite different to what a lot of non legal types would define is as encompassing.

 

[Xzi]

I am finding this debate over the drinking age and the... moral implications of a 16+ year old maybe deigning to drink some booze almost as hilarious as the time I went on Chinese chat rooms and they were discussing how bad porn is.

So now a judge shouldn't even have to know the law? Remember that he's lying about it now, not when he was 16. If it's "no big deal" as you're implying, then there's no reason he shouldn't have been honest and direct about it.

 

[FAST6191]

So now a judge shouldn't even have to know the law? Remember that he's lying about it now, not when he was 16.

What knowing the law entails might vary. We have reference sources for a reason. Anyway that is probably a different discussion. Related to that might be the value of knowing what is essentially random historical ephemera.

I am not entirely sure where you are heading though. I was seeing people seemingly getting morally outraged that a later years teenager enjoys a drink and coming from a place, one with what would be a very familiar culture to anybody from the mainstream US culture that went to there, where 14-15 year olds can regularly be expected to have a drink or three and nobody really cares it was highly amusing. Even more amusing is lawyers are generally known around here for their hard drinking. Guess I might have another thing to note for the little aside there, and note once more it would be something of "two countries separated by a common language".

Anyway if I am interviewing for a big boy judge it almost seems pointless asking about boring stuff like that. Instead I would be posing legal hypotheticals, and unanswerable questions so I can see their logic in attempting to broach it.

 

[kingfrost]

What knowing the law entails might vary. We have reference sources for a reason. Anyway that is probably a different discussion. Related to that might be the value of knowing what is essentially random historical ephemera.

I am not entirely sure where you are heading though. I was seeing people seemingly getting morally outraged that a later years teenager enjoys a drink and coming from a place, one with what would be a very familiar culture to anybody from the mainstream US culture that went to there, where 14-15 year olds can regularly be expected to have a drink or three and nobody really cares it was highly amusing. Even more amusing is lawyers are generally known around here for their hard drinking. Guess I might have another thing to note for the little aside there, and note once more it would be something of "two countries separated by a common language".

Anyway if I am interviewing for a big boy judge it almost seems pointless asking about boring stuff like that. Instead I would be posing legal hypotheticals, and unanswerable questions so I can see their logic in attempting to broach it.

I don't see the moral outrage at him drinking. I see people observing that his entire testimony was semi-truthful at best and using this as an example of times he didn't give a complete answer, or when he verbally attacked a Senator asking him a question about it.

As for the legal definition of black out you mentioned in your other posts, it doesn't matter. He didn't define the word before he answered, nor did the Senators. As long as the legal definition of blackout isn't wide awake, I think everyone understood what was meant.

As for your opinion on what they should ask, it's a known quantity what he will do. In a Supreme Court confirmation, a judge's past judicial history is typically reviewed as well as other jobs. Other than the time Kavanaugh served George W. it was already reviewed. There's no reason to suspect his opinion would change.

As for unanswerable questions, that seems like something that should completely out of the scope of his job. A judge shouldn't be inventing answers to questions, they should be using current law and the constitution to answer legal questions.

 

[FAST6191]

I don't see the moral outrage at him drinking. I see people observing that his entire testimony was semi-truthful at best and using this as an example of times he didn't give a complete answer, or when he verbally attacked a Senator asking him a question about it.

As for the legal definition of black out you mentioned in your other posts, it doesn't matter. He didn't define the word before he answered, nor did the Senators. As long as the legal definition of blackout isn't wide awake, I think everyone understood what was meant.

As for your opinion on what they should ask, it's a known quantity what he will do. In a Supreme Court confirmation, a judge's past judicial history is typically reviewed as well as other jobs. Other than the time Kavanaugh served George W. it was already reviewed. There's no reason to suspect his opinion would change.

As for unanswerable questions, that seems like something that should completely out of the scope of his job. A judge shouldn't be inventing answers to questions, they should be using current law and the constitution to answer legal questions.

I was seeing people assign more value than "boys will be boys" to the potentially underage drinking and that I found hilarious. The other stuff is potentially disturbing but I was not commenting on that for that comment.

The legal definition matters a lot. There is a way of manipulating conversation using such things -- if the guy is a judge sitting in a what is normally fairly serious and legally binding hearing with politicians (I don't know the full laws here but every legal and governmental tradition that makes up America's take on such things that I know more of would say take them seriously, court seriously).
Spin it another way. I am an engineer. Ask me what a strong material is and I will tell you. Ask me what a tough material is and I will tell you. They are not the same thing, not at all, despite what the general public might think. Amusingly that is a distinction that has to be made in court and a literal example from one of my text books covering court interactions (in this case a lawyer was repeatedly using the wrong word despite being corrected several times as it helped their case).
Secondly the legal concept of mens rea (guilty mind) is modified when various parties are "blackout drunk".

I dare say we have a slightly different interpretation of unanswerable questions, to say nothing of the whole point of the court there being to be the final word on questions that are asked. You ask someone something they will likely not (assuming they have not got serious skills most normal people do not, to say nothing of in the case of the law nobody knows how many there are) be able to answer on the spot. However you get to see them start to outline the problem and puzzle out at least where they would head in such things and from that you can tell a lot. It is not necessarily quite the same as the issue spotting exams that law schools favour but not far off.

 

[kingfrost]

I was seeing people assign more value than "boys will be boys" to the potentially underage drinking and that I found hilarious. The other stuff is potentially disturbing but I was not commenting on that for that comment.

The legal definition matters a lot. There is a way of manipulating conversation using such things -- if the guy is a judge sitting in a what is normally fairly serious and legally binding hearing with politicians (I don't know the full laws here but every legal and governmental tradition that makes up America's take on such things that I know more of would say take them seriously, court seriously).
Spin it another way. I am an engineer. Ask me what a strong material is and I will tell you. Ask me what a tough material is and I will tell you. They are not the same thing, not at all, despite what the general public might think. Amusingly that is a distinction that has to be made in court and a literal example from one of my text books covering court interactions (in this case a lawyer was repeatedly using the wrong word despite being corrected several times as it helped their case).
Secondly the legal concept of mens rea (guilty mind) is modified when various parties are "blackout drunk".

I dare say we have a slightly different interpretation of unanswerable questions, to say nothing of the whole point of the court there being to be the final word on questions that are asked. You ask someone something they will likely not (assuming they have not got serious skills most normal people do not, to say nothing of in the case of the law nobody knows how many there are) be able to answer on the spot. However you get to see them start to outline the problem and puzzle out at least where they would head in such things and from that you can tell a lot. It is not necessarily quite the same as the issue spotting exams that law schools favour but not far off.

First of all, boys will be boys is not a sound defense for any sort of behavior. It's an explanation used by many to cover behavior that is reprehensible such as bullying and hazing. These activities for years have been defended as "boys being boys" despite the emotional and sometimes physical turmoil they can cause.

Second, the matter at hand isn't if he had one beer underage and I've literally not seen anyone saying he drunk underage and just that as some kind of moral argument against him. There's a difference between underage drinking and repeatedly drinking to the point where you don't remember things i.e blackout. Most people have an issue with the multiple reports that Kavanaugh drunk to the point where he was belligerent or blacked out. I haven't really seen anyone upset simply at the fact he drunk underage.

Third of all, that's not an unanswerable question to my understanding but more of a critical thinking exercise. The reason neither side asked any of those questions is because they don't want a judge who's going to demonstrate critical thought. They want a judge who's going to make decisions straight down the party line. I think some of our misunderstanding is coming from the fact that the political and legal worlds may overlap but they are in no way, shape or form the same.

Politicians don't care if a judge can think critical. They care only about the decisions he will make on key issues. This is what the confirmation process is really about. The majority party puts up a candidate with views it supports and the other party attempts to undermine them unless there's enough moderation in the candidates views for their to be an agreement meant.

Part of that is the issue with Kavanaugh. The worry is that he will be a key vote for conservatives on many issues, where as the Judge he's replacing Justice Kennedy was often a vote that could go either way. This is why this process has become so critical.

I agree that, in a perfect world, the process would be about the fitness of the candidate and his personal views wouldn't matter. However, that's not how this process has worked for many many years if ever. In fact, many people of both parties are calling out Kavanaugh for saying what comes around goes around, Democratic conspiracy, and all of that in his opening statement for this very reason.

Also on that note, to gain my personal respect, which I know doesn't matter, all Kavanaugh would have had to do is behave how a judge on the highest court in the land should behave and be cool and calm under pressure. To say he didn't do that would be a massive understatement.

 

[FAST6191]

First of all, boys will be boys is not a sound defense for any sort of behavior. It's an explanation used by many to cover behavior that is reprehensible such as bullying and hazing. These activities for years have been defended as "boys being boys" despite the emotional and sometimes physical turmoil they can cause.

Second, the matter at hand isn't if he had one beer underage and I've literally not seen anyone saying he drunk underage and just that as some kind of moral argument against him. There's a difference between underage drinking and repeatedly drinking to the point where you don't remember things i.e blackout. Most people have an issue with the multiple reports that Kavanaugh drunk to the point where he was belligerent or blacked out. I haven't really seen anyone upset simply at the fact he drunk underage.

Third of all, that's not an unanswerable question to my understanding but more of a critical thinking exercise. The reason neither side asked any of those questions is because they don't want a judge who's going to demonstrate critical thought. They want a judge who's going to make decisions straight down the party line. I think some of our misunderstanding is coming from the fact that the political and legal worlds may overlap but they are in no way, shape or form the same.

Politicians don't care if a judge can think critical. They care only about the decisions he will make on key issues. This is what the confirmation process is really about. The majority party puts up a candidate with views it supports and the other party attempts to undermine them unless there's enough moderation in the candidates views for their to be an agreement meant.

Part of that is the issue with Kavanaugh. The worry is that he will be a key vote for conservatives on many issues, where as the Judge he's replacing Justice Kennedy was often a vote that could go either way. This is why this process has become so critical.

I agree that, in a perfect world, the process would be about the fitness of the candidate and his personal views wouldn't matter. However, that's not how this process has worked for many many years if ever. In fact, many people of both parties are calling out Kavanaugh for saying what comes around goes around, Democratic conspiracy, and all of that in his opening statement for this very reason.

Also on that note, to gain my personal respect, which I know doesn't matter, all Kavanaugh would have had to do is behave how a judge on the highest court in the land should behave and be cool and calm under pressure. To say he didn't do that would be a massive understatement.

Hazing is a bad thing now? Serves a valuable purpose for a lot of things in bonding and group dynamics. It can certainly get out of hand but as a principle I have no great objections.
Similarly I have never seen boys will be boys as code for that sort of thing. More for when stuff when down but nobody but those involved was ultimately hurt and thus the mere act of going through the motions of punishment is enough.

Again blackout has meanings to a lawyer. I saw some query it in passing and seemingly attach great meaning*, however the mere fact the questions are being asked says most of what I would note. I similarly have no problem with someone drinking to blackout drunk if they want and don't find it reflecting on their moral character. Belligerent would be a different matter if it was more than once (though I suppose some might say alcohol does not make you an arsehole, just makes you truer to your underlying self).

*I am slightly curious how much is an attempt to answer and not just plead the fifth as it were.

You say critical thinking (though I would probably have a different definition of that, still an important skill though), I say unanswerable question. Either way if nobody is asking such things then it speaks to greater problems.

As for under pressure I would say it is less of a concern for a supreme court justice. Any dynamic courtroom lawyering stuff (such that it even exists) should have happened several trials ago and we are purely down to logic at this point.

 

[DeadlyFoez]

Tl;dr

@blujay raped me with his tiny bird dick.
...and i liked it.

 

[kingfrost]

Hazing is a bad thing now? Serves a valuable purpose for a lot of things in bonding and group dynamics. It can certainly get out of hand but as a principle I have no great objections.
Similarly I have never seen boys will be boys as code for that sort of thing. More for when stuff when down but nobody but those involved was ultimately hurt and thus the mere act of going through the motions of punishment is enough.

Again blackout has meanings to a lawyer. I saw some query it in passing and seemingly attach great meaning*, however the mere fact the questions are being asked says most of what I would note. I similarly have no problem with someone drinking to blackout drunk if they want and don't find it reflecting on their moral character. Belligerent would be a different matter if it was more than once (though I suppose some might say alcohol does not make you an arsehole, just makes you truer to your underlying self).

*I am slightly curious how much is an attempt to answer and not just plead the fifth as it were.

You say critical thinking (though I would probably have a different definition of that, still an important skill though), I say unanswerable question. Either way if nobody is asking such things then it speaks to greater problems.

As for under pressure I would say it is less of a concern for a supreme court justice. Any dynamic courtroom lawyering stuff (such that it even exists) should have happened several trials ago and we are purely down to logic at this point.

I would absolutely say hazing is a bad thing and a relic of the mistakes of past ages. However, I'm quite aware that we don't need to agree on that. I've seen first hand the kind of toxic environment it can breed, and also think it only serves to enhance the tribal and primal underlying that has left our current society so upended.

On the next subject, perhaps we live in different areas or have different circles we move in. When I was younger, I frequently saw boys will be boys used as the first defense for straight boys both physically and harassing homosexual boys. To be clear, I'm referring to groping, grabbing, throwing rocks, and other forms of physical assault. I also saw it used it used to excuse boys drinking underage, driving drunk, and having "victimless" accidents, as long as, of course, they were in the right group.

I am aware that blackout Habs meanings for lawyers. Black outs aren't legally a defense against anything for one, and for two they can be used to put you in a certain place and time even if you say you weren't there. If there is anything more you would like to add, please do because just saying it means different things to a lawyer and not explaining is just gatekeeping at best.

Obviously, the issue here is that everyone has different standards. Burning the flag for example is legally grey, and some people think it should be enforced as a crime, while some see it as a protest. Ironically, many who are ok with underage drinking, in this context, see it as wrong to burn the flag and think it should be punishable. The point being, everyone picks and choose.

I would say that being able to function properly under pressure is very important. They're going to make legal decisions that effect the rights as life so many many people. Even Mr. Kavanaugh believes this if his op-ed in the WSJ wasn't just more damage control for his failed appearance.

 

[Viri]

Tl;dr

@blujay raped me with his tiny bird dick.
...and i liked it.

Me too! Believe me! Also vote is going forward! We might end up with a new judge soon.

 

[kingfrost]

Me too! Believe me! Also vote is going forward! We might end up with a new judge soon.

Yes we very well may.

As for the jokes about sexual assault, I can only say that shows how seriously his supporters take any accusations, credible or not. I pray no one you know is ever personally affected and has to be in that position. I really do.

There's a time and place for jokes like that and they shouldn't be involved in discussion of whether an affluent political official sexually assaulted a woman.

 

[Xzi]

So yeah, seems like they have the votes to confirm this jackass. FBI investigation was a limited sham according to several different sources, the Bar Association is re-opening their evaluation into his rating, and we know of at least a few instances of evidenced perjury in front of the senate, but he's gonna get confirmed anyway. So much for any shred of legitimacy remaining in rule of law.

 

[kuwanger]

Instead I would be posing legal hypotheticals, and unanswerable questions so I can see
their logic in attempting to broach it.

They already went through that in previous testimony with Kavanaugh. Most of his answers (that I saw, anyways) were of the "it depends" sort without real clarification. It would have actually been nice to see him try to reason out any sort of a hypothetical.

Again blackout has meanings to a lawyer. I saw some query it in passing and seemingly attach great meaning*, however the mere fact the questions are being asked says most of what I would note.

I'd point out that he wasn't merely asked if he had blackouts but 'about his drinking habits, including if he had ever drunk so much he "didn't remember what happened the night before or part of what happened."' So, this really isn't some discussion about the semantics of the legal definition of the word "blackout". He did respond by rephrasing it as "asking about blackout" and perhaps that gets him off the hook? I don't know if he ever did have a situation where he had partial memory loss because of drinking, but if he did, it would seem that he committed equivocation which is nominally considered lying.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, my issue isn't whether he drank a lot or not or even if it was per se illegal when he drank. It's that he clearly seems in denial about his drinking to the point of perjury.

 

[kingfrost]

So yeah, seems like they have the votes to confirm this jackass. FBI investigation was a limited sham according to several different sources, the Bar Association is re-opening their evaluation into his rating, and we know of at least a few instances of evidenced perjury in front of the senate, but he's gonna get confirmed anyway. So much for any shred of legitimacy remaining in rule of law.

Of course. Susan Collins was likely decided from the beginning anyway as evidenced by a speech that addressed no one's concerns with him as a candidate except to lie about his views on abortion and gay marriage.

What troubled me the most about it is that she shifted blame for our current division onto "algorithms showing us what we want to see" and didn't address half her party going to Twitter to say that they showed the Democrats and etc etc who make up half the country.

I fear that soon her party will move to regulate the internet as they have threatened and this was some sort of first step toward that. Why do else mention it at all?

 

[Joe88]

I fear that soon her party will move to regulate the internet as they have threatened and this was some sort of first step toward that. Why do else mention it at all?

Her party literally removed government regulation of the internet with net neutrality

 

[Viri]

Well, if he doesn't get the votes to be confirmed, this is going to rile up the right. They'll be riled up and show up in bigger numbers next month. If he does get confirmed, then, yay, a new judge!

Either way, it's a win win in my book.