What's new
By:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Thriller said:
Do republicans care anymore? Maybe they feel that as long as they hold onto the 35-39 percent of (white) voters that they'll successfully obstruct democrats until power swings their way again in the mid 2020s? I honestly don't know.

It feels like the GOP has all but given up trying to win over voters outside of their Fox News/Conspiracy filled bubble. I suppose that it makes sense as oligarchy money from the Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc fueled by tax cuts and deregulation keeps the party well funded. And as long as they can successfully obstruct democrats and control enough state legislatures, they can continue to roll back the advances of the past century and continue to turn America into a kleptocracy.
Click to expand...
I don't know... It's hard to say. It's not exactly the same thing, but given what happened in Alabama with Roy Moore, you'd think the GOP would have learned their lesson about sticking by sex perverts. Long term I'm sure they think they can weather the storm, but this has got to kill them in the midterms.
 
Zombie said:
I don't know... It's hard to say. It's not exactly the same thing, but given what happened in Alabama with Roy Moore, you'd think the GOP would have learned their lesson about sticking by sex perverts. Long term I'm sure they think they can weather the storm, but this has got to kill them in the midterms.
Click to expand...

Unless they know Russia can help them weather the storm these midterms, right? Not trying to be conspiratorial but why haven’t they worked to protect our elections? Why did they recently reject additional funding for security? Why have so many republicans met in Russia, the 4th of July visit in particular? In 2016 Russians infiltrated 23 different states. This could potentially enable them to erase people from the rolls.

Think about it, you mess with just a handful of computers in closely fought senate seats and the repubs can hold the senate. Target 30-50 house districts in close dispute and republicans maintain the house.

It really isn’t a long shot to believe that Russian meddling could impede the blue wave. Think trump’s admin will ever investigate to ensure that the 2018 election was fair??? Lol...
 
I guess I’m confused.

Nobody can corroborate Ford’s accusation. Her life long friend, whom Ford said was at the party, had stated that she has never met Brett Kavanaugh. That’s quite damning to the story.

The other accusation, a credible newspaper wouldn’t even run with the story because they thought it was too flimsy. The accuser wasn’t even sure it was Kavanaugh.

This will/should be settled by Thursday, if Ford shows up or if she doesn’t.

In the mean time, let’s continue calling Kavanaugh a sex pervert because we’re not biased at all.

/wish Trump would’ve just gone with Amy Barrett. Can’t imagine she would be accused of sexual assault.
 
Red said:
Turns out Judge Kavanaugh was a virgin through high school and for "many years after":

https://deadline.com/2018/09/brett-...ominee-martha-maccallum-video-1202470354/amp/
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
JustTheTip said:
Too true, too true.
Click to expand...
not that we're much better with changing Prime Ministers willy nilly but really .. someone has a vague memory that when they were at a drunken party some dude amongst a group they're not really sure who it was or wasn't groped them, the majority of people named vehemently deny it, it's brought to attention at the last second before one of the said dudes is to be confirmed as a supreme court justice, no police report / charges and an ensuing circus prevails ??

wow
 
Red said:
Turns out Judge Kavanaugh was a virgin through high school and for "many years after":

https://deadline.com/2018/09/brett-...ominee-martha-maccallum-video-1202470354/amp/
Click to expand...

Technically, he's not being accused of having sex. He's being accused of groping someone and/or exposing himself at a party.

Personally, I don't care if he or someone else exposed himself at a college kegger. I've been to college parties where men and women are in different stages of getting undressed, making out, women are in the men's showers, and so on. Maybe the standards today are changing, but this seems like a non-issue to me.

The Dems are probably trying to establish a pattern of behavior perhaps as an alternative to better substantiating Ford's claims, which are more serious. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think anyone has been able to corroborate what Ford claims happened.
 
Last edited:
JAZZGASM said:
And when I say "in this case", I think you can infer that I wasn't referring to a legal case, but the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

I accept that was your intent. When you kept using the term "burden of proof", a legal term, I mistakenly thought you were using a legal term with "case". My apologies.

JAZZGASM said:
What is more interesting is that some people think that our politicians will break from party lines and make a proper decision instead of a party decision. Sadly it just doesn't happen very often. The Republicans know that the potential shaping of legal decisions for a long time are at stake, and they are willing to risk a lot to push their guy through. Do you think without more evidence that he won't get confirmed?
Click to expand...

I think he will get through the committee, if they feel they have the 50 in the Senate. It's hard to tell if Flake is being serious about his doubts or throwing shade. Alaska has another sex scandal going on, will that affect Murakowski? Despite the noise about Collins, I think she will vote for the party.

JAZZGASM said:
Same thing happened with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, and the whole thing, even though investigated, was largely railroaded to make her look like a lying slut. Pretty sad that we put up with the circus time and time again.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Zombie said:
I mean, any GOP senator who votes to confirm this guy absent a thorough investigation is alienating half of their constituency. Seems like a bad strategy.
Click to expand...

Maybe 20%. Lot's of conservative women are more than happy to say "boys will be boys", as long as they can restrict abortions.
 
"Burden of proof" is a legal term but also a term that can be applied outside of a strictly legal context. It establishes who the onus is on to provide evidence in any dispute, and it is the party making a positive claim (God exists, for example) which in this case is that a sexual assault happened. Kavanaugh says it didn't happen. This places the burden of proof on the person making the positive claim. You don't have to be in a trial to have a burden of proof.
 
Last edited:
Reanate Alumni

Classy Kavanaugh, really classy!
 
Bulletproof said:
Reanate Alumni

Classy Kavanaugh, really classy!
Click to expand...
Here's the thing, this is actually really illuminating. So, in a vacuum it's not really a big deal for a seventeen year old kid to participate in something dumb and disrespectful like this. But instead of 'owning' it and saying, yeah I was a dumb teenager, and I'm sorry for being a dick, Kavanaugh's camp says this:

“The language from Judge Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook refers to the fact that he and Ms. Dolphin attended that one high school event together and nothing else.”

That's such an obvious bullsh*t lie. Why not just ****ing admit it? Unless you are worried that this fits into a pattern of behavior, and if he's willing to spin some obvious bullsh*t like this, how are we supposed to believe anything else this guy says?
 
Bulletproof said:
"Burden of proof" is a legal term but also a term that can be applied outside of a strictly legal context. It establishes who the onus is on to provide evidence in any dispute, and it is the party making a positive claim (God exists, for example) which in this case is that a sexual assault happened. Kavanaugh says it didn't happen. This places the burden of proof on the person making the positive claim. You don't have to be in a trial to have a burden of proof.
Click to expand...
Eh, kind of. Let's say I am up for a promotion along with a few other candidates, and I have a reputation for being a sexist pig in the workplace, while the others are squeaky clean. There may be no concrete evidence, but a couple of people have complained about it.

I don't think it's up to those other people to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm not fit for the job. In this situation, I think it's up to me to prove I deserve it.
If I can't, whoever is making the decision may decide to err on the side of caution, and that is 100% ok.
 
Zombie said:
Eh, kind of. Let's say I am up for a promotion along with a few other candidates, and I have a reputation for being a sexist pig in the workplace, while the others are squeaky clean. There may be no concrete evidence, but a couple of people have complained about it.

I don't think it's up to those other people to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm not fit for the job. In this situation, I think it's up to me to prove I deserve it.
If I can't, whoever is making the decision may decide to err on the side of caution, and that is 100% ok.
Click to expand...

Oh I fully agree, and have said as much in earlier posts.

Kavanaugh is not in a criminal trial, he is contesting a lifetime position to the Supreme Court, and he should be denied.

He can't clear the bar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top