SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[grego]

5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I thought BK said he did drink because the drinking age was 18?

 

"And yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there. And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion and people generally in high school – I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit, but that’s not what we’re talking about.'

 

[Kilmer17]

6 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/majority-of-americans-oppose-kavanaugh-nomination-if-fords-allegation-is-true-poll-says

  

 

 

Thanks.  That's a lot different than this poll.

[RedskinsFan44]

11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I thought BK said he did drink because the drinking age was 18?

But that was a bit of a lie because he didn't hit 18 till after that changed so he wasn't legal till 21(linked here previously). I'm his age and we used to drive to DC to get beer because I made that cutoff.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

But that was a bit of a lie because he didn't hit 18 till after that changed so he wasn't legal till 21(linked here previously). I'm his age and we used to drive to DC to get beer because I made that cutoff.

He could have easily driven the mile or so into DC to buy beer.

[Cooked Crack]

9 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Thanks.  That's a lot different than this poll.

It's the same poll. 29 is total. 54 is just among Rs.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by visionary

[Kilmer17]

8 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

It's the same poll. 29 is total. 54 is just among Rs.

Crap.  K can’t read.   Thanks.  

[Burgold]

I think part of the problem our conservative friends on this board are suffering from is the idea that both sides are the same. They're not.

 

Let's look at recent GOP investigations and scandals:

Obama not a citizen

Benghazi

Hillary's email

 

In all these cases, the charges were bull or mostly bull. In fact, with Benghazi and Obama's birth certificate,  the GOP pretty much admitted they knew it was bs, but wanted to pursue it for political points anyway. The one which has a grain of truth, Hillary's emails, was inflated completely out of proportion to all similar cases... AND Trump and his cohorts while in office have done worse as far as using unsecure communication channels with nary a peep.

 

Now, let's flip the scenario... and you'll be hard pressed to find a Democratic charge that hasn't been entirely true whether it was Stormy Daniels, whether it was Don Jr. meeting for the purpose of colluding with Russians, etc. So, when we come to Kavanaugh, it's fair to presume innocence, but it's also fair to assume that these three women are not liars. It's fair to presume this because the Democrats don't play slimeball politics in the same way. When they make an accusation, it's based on facts. In fact, if you consider all the wrongdoing Trump has engaged in over the years they've been downright understated.

 

So, a reason to believe the Democrats and the accusers is simple. They've proven right over and over again. Mueller (a Republican) is batting 1.00, Avenati is batting 1.00, and the Dems are too.

 

 

[mcsluggo]

3 hours ago, B&G said:

Everytime I read one of these, I wonder if liberals believe the nonsense and ignorance they constantly spew.

 

I am aware of the difference you mention.  I also say, for the second or third time, that fairness is supremely important to most Americans.  Most would never take as fact any serious allegation before testimony is heard and evaluated.  They, regardless of the setting, would presume innocence until it is proved otherwise.

 

 

 

OJ was acquitted in the charge of murdering his wife, because of the burden of proof that is inherent in  presumed innocence for criminal charges.   Same with George Zimmerman.... 

 

however... based on a lower burden of proof, i would NEVER vote to approve either of them for ANY political appointment.   

 

Similarly, I haven't seen enough evidence to think that criminal charges should be brought against Brett Kavanaugh (yet... based on the evidence i have seen in the public domain)....

but his weasley and clearly misleading answers to a whole array of questions has easily given me enough food for thought to doubt that he deserves to be granted a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land.

 

those sketchy answers include his dubious statements surrounding his behavior in these sexual allegation (saying he was too busy studying and going to church in high school to do things like drink, by golly)  

but his total lack of honesty was apparent even before these allegations were raised.... for instance, answering every question about: <insert important legal item that might cross the supreme court docket soon> with:  " by golly... I've never thought about that issue before.. by gum..." 

 

There is a vastly different burden of proof between saying he should be locked up, versus saying he seems too sketchy to be a supreme court justice....  Is that clear enough for you?

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by mcsluggo

[RedskinsFan44]

23 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

He could have easily driven the mile or so into DC to buy beer.

Still not legal at house parties in MoCo.

Besides this is the kind of parsing that makes him seem dishonest. I drank beer I didn't buy in DC too, and wouldn't characterize what I did as "legal".

[ExoDus84]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

This is horrendous

 

 

 

Gotta love those rural conservative communities where pedophilia and sexual assault are only mildly frowned upon. Roy Moore can tell you how it really is.

[mcsluggo]

5 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

It's a pretty good article.  But you, me, the author aren't up for a Supreme Court nomination, a position that...well, you should be closer to a choir boy.  The author would never lie about it?  Because he's relatively anonymous and no one cares about an editorial in the WaPo, it's easy for him to say that.  I would hope that if Greg Sargent was ever hauled in front of some big hearing that was broadcast on CSPAN, he'd tell the truth.  But what makes him so much better than people who lie?  Cause he said he'd never lie?  The moral high ground, man.  Greg Sargent's article isn't 100% about BK, it's about him flexing his moral muscles and telling us what a hell of a guy he is, that he'd never lie.  Awesome, Greg Sargent, I believe you.  You are always forthcoming with the truth and no one would ever dare question your character.  <golf clap>

 

Should BK tell the truth about his drinking? Yeah, absolutely.  Often times the lie is worse than the actual deed and thats the case here.  But BK lying about it?  I'm not saying I condone it, but I understand it and I'm not surprised.  It's sad that he can't own it.  

 

but... the question is what does Kavanaugh's obvious, casual, repeated, lying do to his credibility?   why should anyone believe what he says about IMPORTANT stuff?

[visionary]

Minus some key folks from before who changed their mind.

 

 

 

 

 

[Llevron]

I still wanna know what's up with Lindsey Graham. Something seems off about him. I never trusted him anyway, but now hes just off. 

[Popeman38]

11 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I think part of the problem our conservative friends on this board are suffering from is the idea that both sides are the same. They're not.

 

Let's look at recent GOP investigations and scandals:

Obama not a citizen

Benghazi

Hillary's email

 

In all these cases, the charges were bull or mostly bull. In fact, with Benghazi and Obama's birth certificate,  the GOP pretty much admitted they knew it was bs, but wanted to pursue it for political points anyway. The one which has a grain of truth, Hillary's emails, was inflated completely out of proportion to all similar cases... AND Trump and his cohorts while in office have done worse as far as using unsecure communication channels with nary a peep.

 

Now, let's flip the scenario... and you'll be hard pressed to find a Democratic charge that hasn't been entirely true whether it was Stormy Daniels, whether it was Don Jr. meeting for the purpose of colluding with Russians, etc. So, when we come to Kavanaugh, it's fair to presume innocence, but it's also fair to assume that these three women are not liars. It's fair to presume this because the Democrats don't play slimeball politics in the same way. When they make an accusation, it's based on facts. In fact, if you consider all the wrongdoing Trump has engaged in over the years they've been downright understated.

 

So, a reason to believe the Democrats and the accusers is simple. They've proven right over and over again. Mueller (a Republican) is batting 1.00, Avenati is batting 1.00, and the Dems are too.

 

 

So for the bolded, you say there was a grain of truth. There is more than a grain of truth to it. Hillary used a private email for official correspondence, and kept the server, unsecured, in her residence. That means the emails were not stored in accordance with government standards (available for FOIA disclosure). Now, to the more important portion of the email - there was classified information exchanged over the non-classified server. As Secretary of State, Hillary was a classification authority, meaning she knew what was and was not classified, even if it wasn't marked with a classification. There is a reason all of her statements were, "I never knowingly sent anything that was marked as classified."  That qualification was added for a reason, and ensured she never lied. But as a classification authority, she knew she was sending classified information in an unsecure manner. She cannot dispute that.

 

If we are going to make statements, they should be accurate. The email story was focused on the wrong aspect the whole time.

 

And the Dems are not batting 1.000. They are clearly better hitters than the Reps, but they are not batting 1.000.

 

/derail

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

but... the question is what does Kavanaugh's obvious, casual, repeated, lying do to his credibility?   why should anyone believe what he says about IMPORTANT stuff?

Yep. And if you think about the traits you would want when it comes to a Supreme Court Judge... Integrity would be pretty high on the list.

 

Kavanaugh fails the integrity test

He fails the impartiality test

He fails the basic cognitive functioning test (if we take him at his word, his memory and reasoning centers have been badly damaged.)

 

Why is he a good candidate for SCOTUS? Because he has promised to be a far right ideologue and probably has promised to protect Trump at all costs. Is toadyism really the quality we want in a judge?

[Cooked Crack]

Trump taking questions now

 

 

[ExoDus84]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

I still wanna know what's up with Lindsey Graham. Something seems off about him. I never trusted him anyway, but now hes just off. 

 

He started drinking from the same lead contaminated water source Trump has been sipping from his whole life.

[Popeman38]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I still wanna know what's up with Lindsey Graham. Something seems off about him. I never trusted him anyway, but now hes just off. 

He hasn't been the same since McCain died...

[NoCalMike]

I wonder if Kavanaugh tried to pull the choir boy routines because he saw the timeline for confirmation and figured there wasn't enough time for anything else to come out before he was confirmed.

[mcsluggo]

7 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think you have the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence mixed up.  Read the Bill of Rights some time.  Congress shall not... is all over it.  The Constitution does not mention happiness and no court has ever found that it guarantees a right to pursue happiness.

 

The presumption of innocence is about limiting the powers of the government.  The government gains power over the "guilty" party.  By putting the burden on the government, you limit the chance of the government gaining that power.

 

It isn't hard to see that our judicial system is not fair to victims of (violent) crime.  To get justice, they have to testify in front of the people that committed the crime on them to the nature of the crime.  That alone in many cases inflicts additional emotional trauma (or simply extends it), and then in many cases, they don't even get justice out of it (because in he said/she said situations, often that isn't enough evidence to over come the assumption of innocence).

 

Our judicial system is not about fairness.  It is (at least supposed to be) heavily tilted in favor of the defendant over the state (and the victim) to limit the ability of the government from gaining to much power and abusing it.

 

To bring in another famous case, the state failed to meet the burden of proof against OJ Simpson and he was found not guilty.  That doesn't mean the rest of society should have been forced to act like he's innocent and continued to put out movies and watch them with OJ Simpson in them or companies pay for him to endorse products and people continue to use the products that he was endorsing.  And it doesn't mean that was fair to Nicole Brown's family.

 

19 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

OJ was acquitted in the charge of murdering his wife, because of the burden of proof that is inherent in  presumed innocence for criminal charges.   Same with George Zimmerman.... 

 

however... based on a lower burden of proof, i would NEVER vote to approve either of them for ANY political appointment.   

 

Similarly, I haven't seen enough evidence to think that criminal charges should be brought against Brett Kavanaugh (yet... based on the evidence i have seen in the public domain)....

but his weasley and clearly misleading answers to a whole array of questions has easily given me enough food for thought to doubt that he deserves to be granted a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land.

 

those sketchy answers include his dubious statements surrounding his behavior in these sexual allegation (saying he was too busy studying and going to church in high school to do things like drink, by golly)  

but his total lack of honesty was apparent even before these allegations were raised.... for instance, answering every question about: <insert important legal item that might cross the supreme court docket soon> with:  " by golly... I've never thought about that issue before.. by gum..." 

 

There is a vastly different burden of proof between saying he should be locked up, versus saying he seems too sketchy to be a supreme court justice....  Is that clear enough for you?

 

 

Peter.... i swear i didn't read your post until AFTER i posted my own..!!   really!!

 

but you know... great minds, and all

[NoCalMike]

Trump saying, "they are all getting in a back room and having a good laugh about this" if that isn't some absolute projection of what the GOP is doing. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by visionary

[NoCalMike]

Trump keeps repeating that this is a "con by the Democrats" but he isn't addressing the actual accusations themselves.  He can't or is unwilling to speak on the issue itself, he is just talking in circles. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by visionary