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

[Bozo the kKklown]

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.

Or let's just take the practical reason, Donald Trump is under active criminal investigation for financial and conspiracy with a foreign government and was an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal act that resulted in a guilty conviction.

 

That person is not fit to name Supreme Court justices, especially when the one he has nominated wants the president to be king.

 

 

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

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. 

 

The question is what else comes out between now and Monday. I sure something will. It always does. Will it be enough?

 

you can’t throw an accusation, declare you’ll testify, then hide behind an excuse and expect your credibility to not take a hit. 

 

I don’t know that there’s a good way for a victim to go about this, but this certainly isn’t a good look. 

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

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. 

Sotomayor?  that was a GOP "seat", did Obama take that into consideration when he replaced him with a "far left" Justice?  Of course not.  Not withstanding Souter had become a leftwing Justice, the idea that a seat is somehow left right centrist etc is absurd.

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

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

 

And opposition Senates will block nominees altogether?  That's a fun new wrinkle to the process.

 

Merrick Garland was a compromise nominee.  Republicans created a precedent and a grievance that's going to haunt them for the way they handled that nomination.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

And opposition Senates will block nominees altogether?  That's a fun new wrinkle to the process.

 

Merrick Garland was a compromise nominee.  Republicans created a precedent and a grievance that's going to haunt them for the way they handled that nomination.

That's really what this all about.  The left is still pitching ****fits about Garland.

 

And that's fine really.  They are doing whatever they can to prevent a right wing Justice.  Good for them.  But stop pretending it's more than that.  And accept at some point, that the GOP had the votes to stop Garland, and the Dems (right now) dont have the votes to stop BK

Edited September 19, 2018 by Kilmer17

[bearrock]

6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Sotomayor?  that was a GOP "seat", did Obama take that into consideration when he replaced him with a "far left" Justice?  Of course not.  Not withstanding Souter had become a leftwing Justice, the idea that a seat is somehow left right centrist etc is absurd.

 

No arguments from me there.  Concept that a particular seat should keep the supposed ideological lean of the departing justice is indeed ridiculous.  Not sure why that's relevant though.  I was just answering the question as to whether any dem senators have voted against a nominee by a dem president.

[NoCalMike]

18 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

That's really what this all about.  The left is still pitching ****fits about Garland.

 

And that's fine really.  They are doing whatever they can to prevent a right wing Justice.  Good for them.  But stop pretending it's more than that.  And accept at some point, that the GOP had the votes to stop Garland, and the Dems (right now) dont have the votes to stop BK

 

If your entire argument is "both sides are playing politics with this" Fine...ok, granted.  That's out of the way.  *NOW* what do we do? The right thing or not?

[Kilmer17]

Just now, NoCalMike said:

 

If your entire argument is "both sides are playing politics with this" Fine...ok, granted.  That's out of the way.  *NOW* what do we do? The right thing or not?

Ive said over and over that they should both testify.  That's the right thing.  Delay the vote until that testimony is done.  And if that testimony reveals more info than we currently know, then more delay and investigate.

 

It's WRONG to simply accept her allegations as fact as a means to achieve a political goal.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

Ive said over and over that they should both testify.  That's the right thing.  Delay the vote until that testimony is done.  And if that testimony reveals more info than we currently know, then more delay and investigate.

 

It's WRONG to simply accept her allegations as fact as a means to achieve a political goal.

 

I am not saying just accept her allegations as fact. I am saying have this investigated first. Get all possible information available, equip the folks conducting the hearing with everything possible, then hold the hearings.

 

You know pretty much with 100% certainty if they hold the hearing with zero further investigating first, at the conclusion of the testimony, everyone will just say "He said vs she said, no way to know"

 

Now, could that still happen after an investigation? Sure, but at least at that point we will have known every effort was made to gather information and details.

[visionary]

I’m not sure why some want to make it a him versus her only thing and make it sound as if she just brought this up now as a political game, when there are multiple people she has talked to about it in the past.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I am not saying just accept her allegations as fact. I am saying have this investigated first. Get all possible information available, equip the folks conducting the hearing with everything possible, then hold the hearings.

 

You know pretty much with 100% certainty if they hold the hearing with zero further investigating first, at the conclusion of the testimony, everyone will just say "He said vs she said, no way to know"

 

Now, could that still happen after an investigation? Sure, but at least at that point we will have known every effort was made to gather information and details.

We're back to what is to be investigated?  She claims to not know when, where or who else was there.  How does an investigator start with that?

 

She says those two did it.  They both say no we didnt.  Now what?

 

If we had more info from her, then that's a different situation.

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, visionary said:

I’m not sure why some want to make it a him versus her only thing and make it sound as if she just brought this up now as a political game, when there are multiple people she has talked to about it in the past.

 

Yeah, it seems be getting ignored by certain people that if she is merely making this up, then she made it up twice in the past and passed a lie detector test about her lying, but that's ok because the one guy on Fox said "She is a loon and believes every word of her made up story" so there's that "expertise" being broadcast on the airwaves.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

I’m not sure why some want to make it a him versus her only thing and make it sound as if she just brought this up now as a political game, when there are multiple people she has talked to about it in the past.

Multiple?  Two according to the reports.  Her therapist who says she said something different, and her husband.

 

A simple question to her should be- WHo did you go to the party with?

Just now, NoCalMike said:

 

Yeah, it seems be getting ignored by certain people that if she is merely making this up, then she made it up twice in the past and passed a lie detector test about her lying, but that's ok because the one guy on Fox said "She is a loon and believes every word of her made up story" so there's that "expertise" being broadcast on the airwaves.

I also think its possible that she believes what she is saying.

[Going Commando]

7 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

That's really what this all about.  The left is still pitching ****fits about Garland.

 

And that's fine really.  They are doing whatever they can to prevent a right wing Justice.  Good for them.  But stop pretending it's more than that.  And accept at some point, that the GOP had the votes to stop Garland, and the Dems (right now) dont have the votes to stop BK 

 

Except that it's not all about Merrick Garland.  You really don't get where the Left is coming from on this.  A thief thinks everyone else is a thief.  It's not about revenge for dirty procedural gamesmanship.  Gorsuch got through much easier than this and that was supposed to be Garland's seat.  Democratic Senators might stick it to the GoP by making a flawed and controversial nominee's process difficult out of a sense of grievance.  But mainly because it'd be stupid not to make Republicans pay for trying to ram through such a flawed nominee.  None of this is what the Left actually cares about though.  It's about the social issues at stake with the seat.  Abortion and gay marriage are red line issues for the Left.  And it's also about whether or not a compromised appointee will protect an illegitimate and unfit president if the time for indictment comes along.  These are the reasons there is so much resistance to Kavanaugh.

 

The precedent of blocking an opposition president's judicial nominees is definitely going to haunt Republican presidents though.  That's a genie that the GoP let out of the bottle and its not going back in.

 

I actually don't think grievance over Merrick Garland is going to have any real lasting consequence.  It's grievances over specific landmark conservative decisions that last.  Liberals don't really care about the numbers game on the court, they care about the rulings.  Society is generally on their side on social issues, they're not generally playing defense on minority-held status quos.  There is no well funded militantly partisan judge farm system purposed with packing courts with idealogues on the Left like there is on the Right.  But if you get more Citizens Uniteds, I think the Left will mobilize.  Overturning Roe would do it.  Walking back marriage equality probably would too.

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

We're back to what is to be investigated?  She claims to not know when, where or who else was there.  How does an investigator start with that?

 

She says those two did it.  They both say no we didnt.  Now what?

 

If we had more info from her, then that's a different situation.

 

Well I'm no FBI official, but it sure didn't take the press very long to track down who this lady was once the letter was leaked.  Maybe the FBI would start interviewing her friends, his friends from school, try to track down others who might have been there?  

[Kilmer17]

What happens if the investigation returns a report that says she's lying.

 

Who pays the price?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Well I'm no FBI official, but it sure didn't take the press very long to track down who this lady was once the letter was leaked.  Maybe the FBI would start interviewing her friends, his friends from school, try to track down others who might have been there?  

 

Wait, you think they “tracked down” who she was?

 

you don’t think it was just leaked to them?

 

...

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

What happens if the investigation returns a report that says she's lying.

 

Who pays the price?

 

No one. That’s not how this works. 

 

[visionary]

5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Multiple?  Two according to the reports.  Her therapist who says she said something different, and her husband.

Actually I think at least four people that I can recall offhand, possibly more.  

[Kilmer17]

Just now, visionary said:

Actually I think at least four people that I can recall offhand, possibly more.  

I havent seen that.

 

The tweets above are interesting.  For those thinking that an FBI investigation would come back with a pronouncement of who is and who is not lying, that's not at all what would happen.  Read em.  Ultimately, they would release their finidings to the WH who would then decide along with the Senate whether or not the allegations and rebuttals are credible.  Who here thinks anyone changes his or her minds?

[visionary]

 

 

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

I havent seen that.

 

The tweets above are interesting.  For those thinking that an FBI investigation would come back with a pronouncement of who is and who is not lying, that's not at all what would happen.  Read em.  Ultimately, they would release their finidings to the WH who would then decide along with the Senate whether or not the allegations and rebuttals are credible.  Who here thinks anyone changes his or her minds?

I definitely think it would change minds, (assuming the whitehouse doesn’t visibly interfere.). Some dems and reps are on the edge one way or another despite a lot of the partisan narrative pushing that goes on.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, visionary said:

 

 

I definitely think it would change minds, (assuming the whitehouse doesn’t visibly interfere.). Some dems and reps are on the edge one way or another despite a lot of the partisan narrative pushing that goes on.

You give them far more credit than I do.  Collins would be the only one I would think could flip, but shes been pretty adamant about wanting to see Ford in person.

 

More info could come out before Monday, but my bet is monday we see an empty desk and Senators working towards cloture or delays.

[Kilmer17]

 

funny

Edited September 19, 2018 by Kilmer17

[gbear]

I wonder if many on here who suggest she should "just go to the police" know somebody who has done so for a sexual assault claim.

 

What about one that happened years ago?

 

It's just not that easy.  Usually the victim gets to lose control of the narrative of their life again.  If you had been raped, how much do you want to relive it for everyone else knowing they are unlikely to believe you.  Knowing that even if some do, some and maybe in even most will find it expedient not to do so because you have no "proof."  Remember when Comey kept notes after meetings with Trump, and that was thought smart because it showed what he thought of the interactions before being asked?  That was supposed to lend credence to his version as not made up in response to something unrelated currently happening.  Now there is a woman claiming to have been assaulted with a record of telling others it happened.  How is this different, and what should she or any other victim do?

 

Instead she has come forth after telling a few and put her name publicly behind the accusation.  She has the history of telling some for a record saying she didn't make this up this month.  No, she didn't go to the police right away...which from having a friend do that, is a miserable experience.  She, like most victims, probably thought she wouldn't be believed