What's new

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
The man, a total ****, could cure AIDS and it could be presented as evil.

I disagree. Im a never trump dude. I hate him with a passion. But when he does something right I acknowledge it. He just says and does so much dumb **** that its hard not to be extremely critical of him. He simply sucks so much more often than he does something right/good
 
Except they nominated her from within the party.

Explain they

From what i understand hillary wasnt the voters choice, bernie was.
 
Explain they

From what i understand hillary wasnt the voters choice, bernie was.

After seeing how helpless the Republican Party was against Trump, doesn’t it make you wonder if having super delegates who generally favor the moderate and establishment candidate over the populist outsider isn’t a bad thing at all? Because the GOP didn’t have superdelegates who favored a much more moderate and establishment guy, like Jeb Bush, it made it much easier for Trump to win. Without superdelegates, party leaders are sacrificing their vetting power and giving it to voters.

Is that a good thing?

Normally, we’d all say yes, right?

But after seeing how easily voters are swayed by populist rhetoric, fake news, and racist dogma, is it a good thing for parties to give up their vetting power and give it to voters?

Again, look at what happened to the GOP. Had the GOP followed the DNC’s structure, Jeb Bush would’ve been their nominee. And that would’ve been a bad thing?
 
Well, I for one, am partisan. I'm concerned that the guy about to be appointed to the Supreme Court has a very expansive view of executive branch power, and that that is one of the chief reasons Trump selected him in the first place. And since Trump has made no secret that he has an authoritarian mentality, and indeed seems to represent the culmination of authoritarian trends in the executive branch over the last several administrations, these trends, and the appointment of someone who seems to favor not placing limits on presidential power, worries me.

As for Kavanaugh specifically, he seemed to act like just another Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, attacked the Democrats, and made no effort to hide how partisan he was as well. To the point that he probably would be expected to recuse himself from any cases brought before the Supreme Court involving Democrats. Which seems ridiculous. In a climate characterized by political tribalism, the nominee basically said "I'm as tribal as the rest of you and, oh, BTW, opposition to my appointment is all about revenge by the Clinton's". Wonderful.

Reading the last few pages of this thread, hard to find anything about his qualifications based on his actual performance last Thursday. Instead it's been tribalism, and who leaked Ford's accusations. As to that actual performance, it seems clear he lied under oath. His answers on the yearbook entries suggest that was the case. And he could not say he supported an FBI investigation. And, as noted, his opening statement alone indicates that statement will be brought up any time a case involving Democrats is before the justices and he'll be asked to recuse himself every time. Establishing himself as conservative in ideology is to be expected, basically stating he's angry at Democrats and suspects a Clinton based conspiracy is not to be expected. I would think, but what do I know.

Anyway, is it true the FBI will only be allowed to interview 4 people? Sounds like it. And it seems like there are people out there who are upset by a less then truthful self portrait by Kavanaugh, and wish to speak to the FBI, and they are getting nowhere in those efforts:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...-renewed-investigation-of-brett-kavanaugh/amp
 
This whole situation is an absolute travesty. Regardless of what may or may not have transpired between Kavanaugh and these accusations, the Democrats who had this information months ago should be banned from Washington forever for waiting to bring out this information. Whether he gets appointed or not, Kavanaugh should not be a judge if he truly did these acts. The Democrats holding this information in the hopes that it helps their party in upcoming elections is downright despicable.

Overall, I think Kavanaugh shouldn't be appointed. Scrap him as a way to even out the Garland situation a few years ago. When Trump nominates the next candidate, no games from either side please.
 
Keith Ellison's alleged misconduct has been largely ignored by Dems.

There are differences. Ellison's misconduct is in the midst of domestic disputes, not predatory behavior. I believe Ellison has asked for an investigation (as Franken did). That said, I believe Ellison's accusers, and that he should be moved from his DNC post. The voters will decide to put him in office or not.

How about Gil Cisneros? He will likely lose, but I don't see the Dem party going after him.

I'm not sure what's going on there. He is apparently alibied at the time he supposedly propositioned Falzi.

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2018/sep/19/gil-cisneros-california-sex-campaign-cash/

Claims that Hillary threatened Bill's accusers were also largely ignored during Hillary's campaigns.

I read Broaddick's account of the meeting with Hillary, and can understand why she thought Hillary might have been referring to Bill's attack, but Hillary also might not have been referring to that. Hillary seems to have believe Bill's protestations of innocence, otherwise. Love can leave you blinded.

Dems have been better about sexual harrassment type claims, but they are far from perfect.

Agreed.

If there was not photographic evidence, I am not sure Franken would have resigned.

Hard to say.
 
If you don't realize that the Dems "who cares?" reaction to his behavior played a large role in the Republicans not caring about Trump's you aren't paying attention.

I recall how concerned all the Republicans were with Gingrich's affairs (to list one of many, many examples) until Bill Clinton came along.

And Clinton is a much more recent example than you're willing to admit because, according to accusers, his wife made veiled threats to them that the Dems still didn't care about when she ran for president a couple years ago.

I think Broaddick misunderstood what Hillary said to her. Considering all the other false charges the Clintons were facing (Foster, Whitewater, etc.) and the effects of love, Hillary probably believed Bill's protestations of innocence for a long time.

Plus there's Keith Ellison.

Accused of domestic abuse, not predatory behavior, has asked for an investigation. I agree he should not have a DNC position.

And Weinstein, who was getting away with awful behavior for years and years

Not a politician, currently has no career at all.
 
This isn't about Clinton or Feinstein or Trump

This is about Brett Kavanaugh and Bart O Kavanaugh. This is about whether this man should be on the Supreme Court. The answer is No!

The legislature needs to vote no (it happens) Trump needs topick a new nominee and we need to move on
 
Lol this is truly top notch **** right here. You figured it out! Debra Katz is pulling the strings for the Democratic party. This proves they are just doing her evil bidding...somehow.

Get a grip dude. Lawyers are on the side of whoever they are representing. She represented AL Franken because he paid her to. One quick glance at her wiki page shows she has a long history of taking clients who have been sexually assaulted. Hell she even went after NPR executive Michael Oreskes and Harvey Weinstein.

I'm sure those were all for show though, to provide her cover as a Democrat operative.

Also you'd be an idiot not to want to be represented by Debra Katz. She's actually really ****ing good at her job.
Where did I say Katz is pulling the strings for the Democratic party? She's a political partisan who has made a big deal of the fact that she's committed to the "resistance" of Donald Trump. Such info is material when she brings a case against Trump's interests. She appears to be a much bigger proponent of leftism than she is of women's causes. Do you think the lie that Ford couldn't fly was for her her client's benefit or for the benefit of Democrats?
 
I disagree. Im a never trump dude. I hate him with a passion. But when he does something right I acknowledge it. He just says and does so much dumb **** that its hard not to be extremely critical of him. He simply sucks so much more often than he does something right/good

Good for you. But you’re not all people. We see it right here in this board.
 
Where did I say Katz is pulling the strings for the Democratic party? She's a political partisan who has made a big deal of the fact that she's committed to the "resistance" of Donald Trump. Such info is material when she brings a case against Trump's interests. She appears to be a much bigger proponent of leftism than she is of women's causes. Do you think the lie that Ford couldn't fly was for her her client's benefit or for the benefit of Democrats?
You gotta lay of the alt right talking points man. There was no 'lie' about her being unable to fly. She has anxiety with air travel (might have something to do with there not being exits, wonder why that might be?).
 
The Republicans were in control and pulled a dirty trick, though not one designed to destroy people's lives like what we have just seen. They had no need to blindside anyone at the eleventh hour because they were in a position to make sure that no eleventh hour ever came. I would like to think they wouldn't have handled it in the way the Dems just did had they been forced to move forward, but politicians never cease to disappoint, so they probably would.

If the Dems get control of the Senate in the mid-terms will you be surprised if they employ the same strategy that the Republicans pulled on Gorsuch?
You're thinking of Merrick Garland. The question is, if Feinstein has these superpowers, why didn't she use them on Trump's first nominee?
 
You gotta lay of the alt right talking points man. There was no 'lie' about her being unable to fly. She has anxiety with air travel (might have something to do with there not being exits, wonder why that might be?).
The story I was hearing, from numerous news sources, was that she could not fly because of how the attempted rape had impacted her. Turns out that she flies quite frequently. That's why I call it a lie. I didn't say that it was Ford who made this claim, but someone on her team definitely did. Additionally, Ford claimed in sworn testimony that she was unaware of the offer that the committee had made to fly to California and interview her there. It's impossible to be sure why this information that practically everyone in America knew had never been transmitted to Ford, but I don't think it takes a rocket surgeon to speculate that it might have been because Ford's team is in favor of delays.
 
If the FBI does its job in this instance they will look at the statements Kavanaugh made in last week's hearing, try to coorborate Kavanaugh's interpretations with those of his high school mates, deliver those findings to the Judiciary Committee, and let those senators use the same standard Kavanaugh's own mother used as a Justice:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/01/kavanaugh-boofing-fbi-investigation-220808

"There is a chance the FBI might uncover additional evidence or testimony that further corroborates these women’s claims. But if not—especially as reports suggest that the White House is narrowing the scope of the probe and hamstringing investigators’ ability to get to the truth of these allegations—the FBI still must examine Kavanaugh’s credibility and candor.
FBI agents will not provide a conclusion or judgment about Kavanaugh’s credibility, but they can—and must—look to his Senate testimony and present senators with evidence that refutes or corroborates it.

For example, FBI investigators should ask Kavanaugh’s football teammates—many of whom also dubbed themselves “Renate alumni” in their own yearbook entries—exactly what the reference meant. They should ask Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge, whose yearbook entry also referenced boofing, if he agrees—under oath—that it means what Kavanaugh said it does. They should find the friends who supposedly played Devil’s Triangle with Kavanaugh.

Regardless of whether such petty lies could ever amount to perjury, they provide glimpses into Kavanaugh’s character and candor. As Kavanaugh well knows, in our legal system, even small lies matter. In jury trials, there is a standard instruction to jurors that if they conclude a witness is lying about any matter, they have the right to dismiss that witness’ entire testimony as potentially untruthful.

Kavanaugh’s own mother was a judge, and he has described her judicial philosophy as this: “Use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false.”

Senators weighing Kavanaugh’s fate should apply the same standard. To date, many of them have tried to dismiss Ford’s allegations as a case of “he said, she said.” But any proof that Kavanaugh lied under oath should cause senators to err on the side of believing her over him.

Furthermore, anyone prone to such casual lying is not fit to serve a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court.

After all, if Kavanaugh can’t be trusted to tell the truth about even the minor stuff, why should we trust him on anything else?"
 
I feel like I should make a couple things clear. First the Democratic Party =//= The Clinton's. They are, or were, important power brokers, but they're not the all-powerful boogeymen they are made out to be. Hillary is not all that popular even among Democrats, she won an incredibly weak primary mostly on name recognition. I'd wager that most of the left wingers on this site did not vote for her in the Primary (I voted for Bernie).

I also don't think the Democratic party is pure as the driven snow. They have a history of looking the other way with regard to sexual abuse, Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy come to mind. However, I do think women like Senators Klobuchar and Harris are pulling the party in a different direction. The me too movement is taken much more seriously on the left than the right as well, there just isn't an equal political cost to ignoring or defending men accused of sexual assault.
 
The story I was hearing, from numerous news sources, was that she could not fly because of how the attempted rape had impacted her. Turns out that she flies quite frequently. That's why I call it a lie. I didn't say that it was Ford who made this claim, but someone on her team definitely did. Additionally, Ford claimed in sworn testimony that she was unaware of the offer that the committee had made to fly to California and interview her there. It's impossible to be sure why this information that practically everyone in America knew had never been transmitted to Ford, but I don't think it takes a rocket surgeon to speculate that it might have been because Ford's team is in favor of delays.
It could also be that her team favored a public setting so the American people could have the chance to hear her in her own voice.

Honestly though man, I really don't think it matters much at this point. Clearly Ford's teams goal was to get her story out there to stop Kavanaugh from getting nominated. I found her to be a compelling and believable person, while Kavanaugh disqualified himself for reasons completely unrelated to whether or not he's actually guilty of the charges.

Everything else regarding Ford's lawyers, Feinstein's handling of the claims etc, is sour grapes from Republicans trying to distract from what was a disastrous day for Kavanaugh.
 
It could also be that her team favored a public setting so the American people could have the chance to hear her in her own voice.

Honestly though man, I really don't think it matters much at this point. Clearly Ford's teams goal was to get her story out there to stop Kavanaugh from getting nominated. I found her to be a compelling and believable person, while Kavanaugh disqualified himself for reasons completely unrelated to whether or not he's actually guilty of the charges.

Everything else regarding Ford's lawyers, Feinstein's handling of the claims etc, is sour grapes from Republicans trying to distract from what was a disastrous day for Kavanaugh.
On one point we agree. Kavanaugh's name should be withdrawn.

We strongly disagree on Feinstein's handling. It's much more than sour grapes. Her actions unnecessarily dragged an entire nation through the mud.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top