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

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I suppose there is also the matter of whether it is the right thing to do? Once dude is sitting on the court it isn't going to matter if something new comes out 2 years from now.

There is a method for impeachment for such cases.

 

If all we have is an uncorroborated accusation and a refusal by the accuser to testify, why should their be anything more but a vote?

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

People are really looking past this like we dont all see it coming. 

There are right wing think tanks prepping multiple attacks as we speak.

[NoCalMike]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

There is a method for impeachment for such cases.

 

If all we have is an uncorroborated accusation and a refusal by the accuser to testify, why should their be anything more but a vote?

 

Hence the need for an investigation?

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Chew said:

If their boy Kavanaugh truly is innocent of any wrongdoing, wouldn't republicans want an investigation so that his name could be cleared by a formal process? 

Sure, they could

 

the obvious issue is that the gop knows they’re going to get slaughtered in November and they need this to go through beforehand. 

 

The dems know that too

 

thats precisely why a 30+ year old accusation from a person who can’t remember many of the details, has no evidence, that sent a letter months ago that nothing was done with, that was dropped right before the vote is being looked at skeptically. Not to mention her story doesn’t match what she told her therapist  

 

there’s just enough here to think she’s credible and there’s just enough here to scream political stunt. Which is why watching some people stake out and defend certain sides is so laughably predictable. 

 

 

[Kilmer17]

Just now, NoCalMike said:

 

Hence the need for an investigation?

She's so far refusing to testify.  The FBI has vetted him for multiple positions.  If there is more that needs to be investigated, it has to come from Ford.  Not just a fishing expedition.  

[bearrock]

Hill/Thomas interviews took a month (although I have no idea why it took that long when apparently all they did was only interview Hill and Thomas).  FBI could probably review notes and interview the five public individuals in say 2 weeks.  If there is nothing from those interviews, there's nothing more to go on and the report is provided to congress in let's say 3 weeks to a month tops.  That gets us a vote by end of October at the latest. 

 

If there is something more to investigate, then it's whole new ballgame.  The real deadline is January even if GOP loses the Senate.

 

GOP doesn't want the investigation for several potential reasons I can think of

- They think this is just a smear campaign and a delay tactic.  Once Kavanaugh is confirmed, it will blow over.  And if confirmed quickly, it will have minimal effect on midterms

- If the confirmation happens too close to midterm, then the political risk is probably greater for the GOP than the Dems.

- If something does turn up during the investigation, now they are facing a real time crunch to have someone else nominated and confirmed before January if Dems win the senate, it's a mess (But GOP still controls the clock, so they can jam through a confirmation even in the two month window during lameduck.  But at an obvious political cost).

 

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

People are really looking past this like we dont all see it coming. 

 

To be honest, it’s probably already coming. The effectiveness has been shown. We’re probably headed that way regardless of how this one turns out. 

[bearrock]

11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

There is a method for impeachment for such cases.

 

 

This is probably the most reasonable route by the Dems.  Have Judge Kavanaugh submit a sworn affidavit or state under oath that he denies Dr. For'd accusations in full.  Then conduct a full and thorough investigation with no time table hanging over everyone's head.  If there's convincing evidence that Kavanaugh perjured himself with his denial, impeach him based on that. 

 

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

To be honest, it’s probably already coming. The effectiveness has been shown. We’re probably headed that way regardless of how this one turns out. 

 

It took 27 years between allegations of sexual harassment/assault of a Supreme Court nominee.  Not every presidential candidate or president since Bill Clinton has been subject to allegations of infidelity or sexual misconduct.  It's not that easy to cook up completely false allegations that are credible.  Anyone privy to internals of the Duke lacrosse investigation would have known immediately that something was totally fishy.  UVA rolling stones story started unraveling pretty quickly too.  

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

GOP doesn't want the investigation for several potential reasons I can think of

Add:

scotus nominations are big to the gop and they’ll use it to run for midterms. They can’t use it if they’re not confirming people, and I doubt they want to use this one in its current state. 

 

Also, there is no outcome here that satisfies dems outside of the nomination being withdrawn. If the fbi says they found nothing credible all of 0 of dems will change their mind. 

 

There is no reward for the gop letting this drag out. There is only risk. Unless irrefutable evidence comes out that this did happen, or that she is lying, there will be no movement on either side and each side will always take the shots they’re taking now. 

 

Much like with everything else minds were made the moment the story broke. The rest is a circus act. 

 

The only  real question is whether they have the votes to proceed without an investigation. 

 

If they don’t I bet he withdraws and they find someone else to try to squeeze in this year. If they do then they’ll vote monday. 

 

Im betting they’ll have the votes pending something new coming out before Monday. 

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

This is probably the most reasonable route by the Dems.  Have Judge Kavanaugh submit a sworn affidavit or state under oath that he denies Dr. For'd accusations in full.  Then conduct a full and thorough investigation with no time table hanging over everyone's head.  If there's convincing evidence that Kavanaugh perjured himself with his denial, impeach him based on that. 

 

 

It took 27 years between allegations of sexual harassment/assault of a Supreme Court nominee.  Not every presidential candidate or president since Bill Clinton has been subject to allegations of infidelity or sexual misconduct.  It's not that easy to cook up completely false allegations that are credible.  Anyone privy to internals of the Duke lacrosse investigation would have known immediately that something was totally fishy.  UVA rolling stones story started unraveling pretty quickly too.  

What people learn from those is dont be specific.  Ford claims she was assaulted by Kavanaugh and Judge.  But that's about the extent of it.  Everything else she claims she doesnt remember.  Time, place, other people etc.

 

It wont take much for a right wing activist to claim that President Hickenloopers pick to replace RBG molested her at a party in HS and then not provide any other details.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, bearrock said:

t took 27 years between allegations of sexual harassment/assault of a Supreme Court nominee.  Not every presidential candidate or president since Bill Clinton has been subject to allegations of infidelity or sexual misconduct.  It's not that easy to cook up completely false allegations that are credible.  Anyone privy to internals of the Duke lacrosse investigation would have known immediately that something was totally fishy.  UVA rolling stones story started unraveling pretty quickly too.  

 

The two cases are unrelated. It’s a different time now than it was 27 years ago. And I think the gop is different now than it was then. I’m imagining there are groups already trying to figure out what needs to be done now to throw this accusation at someone later. I’m serious, I have no faith in the gop having even the most basic of morals. See: Roy Moore

 

and I can’t gell but feel like you don’t really get it. Facts don’t matter. Internal knowledge doesn’t matter. What matters is breaking a story that will go viral and has just enough to make people claim their default stances, and that’s a low bar. 

 

You wait - this will happen to the dems and everyone will trade stances seemlessly and they’ll all yell at us in the middle going “wtf is wrong with you people?!” Just like they always do. 

[Going Commando]

37 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Even if nobody can sit here today and describe how it plays out, that doesn't really mean there is a deadline. 

 

The deadline comes from the Republicans being afraid of losing the Senate in the midterms, and thus losing their ability to force a far Right judge into the seat.  The map favors them in the Senate but Trump's unpopularity and unpredictability makes them nervous and they want to have the seat filled as soon before November as possible.

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The deadline comes from the Republicans being afraid of losing the Senate in the midterms, and thus losing their ability to force a far Right judge into the seat.  The map favors them in the Senate but Trump's unpopularity and unpredictability makes them nervous and they want to have the seat filled as soon before November as possible.

This is exactly correct.

But to add.  The Dems know this too.  And they know by delaying it there is a possibility that they will take the Senate and be able to garland the next nominees.  And appearing to fight is what their voters want to see.  A big middle finger to the right.

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

The only  real question is whether they have the votes to proceed without an investigation. 

 

If they don’t I bet he withdraws and they find someone else to try to squeeze in this year. If they do then they’ll vote monday. 

 

Im betting they’ll have the votes pending something new coming out before Monday. 

 

Yeah, if Dr. Ford doesn't testify despite being given an opportunity to do so, Dems can cry foul all they want, I think it give ample cover for GOP senators to vote to confirm.  

 

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

What people learn from those is dont be specific.  Ford claims she was assaulted by Kavanaugh and Judge.  But that's about the extent of it.  Everything else she claims she doesnt remember.  Time, place, other people etc.

 

It wont take much for a right wing activist to claim that President Hickenloopers pick to replace RBG molested her at a party in HS and then not provide any other details.

 

We'll see.  Either way, pandora's box has been opened and we can't ignore the fact that there are real victims who suffer in silence for years before they come forward.  There are aspects of Dr. Ford's story that are hard to manipulate after the fact.  The fact they went to school in the same neighborhood it looks like (I still haven't seen any denial from Kavanaugh or Judge that they knew her in high school).  The couple's counseling.  Telling the husband.  Her friend knowing that she would ensure two means of escape in the bedroom.  Polygraph.  

 

In order to utilize false allegation as a political weapon, you would need to have the respective parties come up with someone who can be placed in proximity with the target, be willing to have their life be turned upside down for a political purpose, and be able to recruit these people without the cat getting out of the bag that you were recruiting in the first place.  All to concoct a vague, unverifiable allegation that may serve to delay but not derail the target.  Whereas if anyone with half a brain records the recruiting contact (whether by phone or meeting), your organization is now toast for all eternity.  That's might big and stupid risk to take.

[Llevron]

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

To be honest, it’s probably already coming. The effectiveness has been shown. We’re probably headed that way regardless of how this one turns out. 

 

dude we have been accidentally setting rules/precedents that I am not at all comfortable with for the last 2 years at least. I mean think about the **** storm when the next Black President has his Chief of Staff taking things off his desk to "protect" us. Just an extreme example i can think of but you get the point. This **** is not going to end well. No way it can. 

 

No that any of this started when Trump hit the scene. But got damn if it didn't accelerate to light speed. 

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

Yeah, if Dr. Ford doesn't testify despite being given an opportunity to do so, Dems can cry foul all they want, I think it give ample cover for GOP senators to vote to confirm.  

 

 

We'll see.  Either way, pandora's box has been opened and we can't ignore the fact that there are real victims who suffer in silence for years before they come forward.  There are aspects of Dr. Ford's story that are hard to manipulate after the fact.  The fact they went to school in the same neighborhood it looks like (I still haven't seen any denial from Kavanaugh or Judge that they knew her in high school).  The couple's counseling.  Telling the husband.  Her friend knowing that she would ensure two means of escape in the bedroom.  Polygraph.  

 

In order to utilize false allegation as a political weapon, you would need to have the respective parties come up with someone who can be placed in proximity with the target, be willing to have their life be turned upside down for a political purpose, and be able to recruit these people without the cat getting out of the bag that you were recruiting in the first place.  All to concoct a vague, unverifiable allegation that may serve to delay but not derail the target.  Whereas if anyone with half a brain records the recruiting contact (whether by phone or meeting), your organization is now toast for all eternity.  That's might big and stupid risk to take.

You think that would be hard to accomplish?  You have more faith in far right think tanks than I do.

[Llevron]

Just now, bearrock said:

 

Yeah, if Dr. Ford doesn't testify despite being given an opportunity to do so, Dems can cry foul all they want, I think it give ample cover for GOP senators to vote to confirm.  

 

 

When you put it this way Dems could have royally screwed themselves with this. First time I can see it as an actual negative for anyone but Ford here. Damn thats a shame. 

[Going Commando]

28 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

There is a method for impeachment for such cases.

  

If all we have is an uncorroborated accusation and a refusal by the accuser to testify, why should their be anything more but a vote? 

 

The GoP has shielded Trump from impeachment and there hasn't been a more obviously criminal and unfit President in office in almost 100 years.  The time for properly vetting a nominee to a position like the Supreme Court is now, before he's appointed.  But it's not going to happen because the GoP wants their hard Right judge and their hard Right court far more than anything else and this might be the only chance at getting a pushing a seat to the Right for a while.

 

They ****ed up by picking such a controversial nominee with such a long past when there were certainly easier options.  But they'll still probably force him through.  Flake, Collins, and Murkowski will fall in line.  The GoP rank and file always fall in line even when their leadership is horrendous.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

dude we have been accidentally setting rules/precedents that I am not at all comfortable with for the last 2 years at least. I mean think about the **** storm when the next Black President has his Chief of Staff taking things off his desk to "protect" us. Just an extreme example i can think of but you get the point. This **** is not going to end well. No way it can. 

 

No that any of this started when Trump hit the scene. But got damn if it didn't accelerate to light speed. 

We went from long taxi runways to straight up Harrier jets

[bearrock]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

The two cases are unrelated. It’s a different time now than it was 27 years ago. And I think the gop is different now than it was then. I’m imagining there are groups already trying to figure out what needs to be done now to throw this accusation at someone later. I’m serious, I have no faith in the gop having even the most basic of morals. See: Roy Moore

 

and I can’t gell but feel like you don’t really get it. Facts don’t matter. Internal knowledge doesn’t matter. What matters is breaking a story that will go viral and has just enough to make people claim their default stances, and that’s a low bar. 

 

You wait - this will happen to the dems and everyone will trade stances seemlessly and they’ll all yell at us in the middle going “wtf is wrong with you people?!” Just like they always do. 

 

I agree with you that neither side will change their mind unless there is some verifiable concrete evidence supporting one story over the other.  (See Roy Moore.  But see Trump locker room talk).  The Dems want the investigation, primarily to delay, but also in a long shot hope that there is some evidence to support Dr. Ford's allegations.  

 

Parties could cook up allegations in the future to delay, but it won't derail any nominations or a candidate without concrete evidence to back it up.

[PeterMP]

6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

This is exactly correct.

But to add.  The Dems know this too.  And they know by delaying it there is a possibility that they will take the Senate and be able to garland the next nominees.  And appearing to fight is what their voters want to see.  A big middle finger to the right.

 

But that isn't a real deadline.  That's a deadline made up by the Republicans because of their political desires.  If political desires created hard and fast deadlines, our government would be a mess.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The GoP has shielded Trump from impeachment and there hasn't been a more obviously criminal and unfit President in office in almost 100 years.  The time for properly vetting a nominee to a position like the Supreme Court is now, before he's appointed.  But it's not going to happen because the GoP wants their hard Right judge and their hard Right court far more than anything else and this might be the only chance at getting a pushing a seat to the Right for a while.

 

They ****ed up by picking such a controversial nominee with such a long past when there were certainly easier options.  But they'll still probably force him through.  Flake, Collins, and Murkowski will fall in line.  The GoP rank and file always fall in line even when their leadership is horrendous.

Which Dems have ever voted against a Dem nominated Justice in the past half century?

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

But that isn't a real deadline.  That's a deadline made up by the Republicans because of their political desires.  If political desires created hard and fast deadlines, our government would be a mess.

I didnt say real.  I said real political. That was specific on purpose.

[Going Commando]

6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

This is exactly correct.

But to add.  The Dems know this too.  And they know by delaying it there is a possibility that they will take the Senate and be able to garland the next nominees.  And appearing to fight is what their voters want to see.  A big middle finger to the right. 

 

It's not about that.  It's about this perception that the Court is about to swing far to the Right for 30 years.  I'm not sure I buy that because Kennedy was a pious pro-corporate justice and the court already swung far to the Right 30 years ago when Clarence Thomas disgraced Thurgood Marshall's seat.  But Kavanaugh particularly scares the Left because he's seen as a legit threat to Roe and marriage equality and Kennedy was not, and he also looks slavishly deferential to the office of the Presidency because of some of the cute Academic arguments he's made in support of the Imperial Presidency, and that is extremely threatening as a Trump appointee in the era of Trump.

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Which Dems have ever voted against a Dem nominated Justice in the past half century?

 

Ben Nelson voted against Kagan.  Dick Byrd voted against Thurgood Marshall.  Breyer and Ginsburg got unanimous Dem support but Breyer only got 9 against total and Ginsburg only got 3 against total. 

[LadySkinsFan]

One of my GF was sexually abused by her father from toddler age to about middle school. It still affected her during our relationship both in the relationship dynamics and in bed, although she denied it was a factor. 

 

Sexual assault affects people for years and decades. The abusers just go blithely along in their lives, the havoc they wreak never affecting them.

 

This is the tragedy.

 

And most men don't give a ****, because if they did this wouldn't still be happening.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

It's not about that.  It's about this perception that the Court is about to swing far to the Right for 30 years.  I'm not sure I buy that because Kennedy was a pious pro-corporate justice and the court already swung far to the Right 30 years ago when Clarence Thomas disgraced Thurgood Marshall's seat.  But Kavanaugh particularly scares the Left because he's seen as a legit threat to Roe and marriage equality and Kennedy was not, and he also looks slavishly deferential to the office of the Presidency because of some of the cute Academic arguments he's made in support of the Imperial Presidency, and that is extremely threatening as a Trump appointee in the era of Trump.

Right wing Presidents will nominate Right wing Justices.  Just as left wing Presidents will nominate left wing Justices.  Its how the cake is baked.