Legal/scotus thread

Despite the seriousness of the allegations--and I think they are serious--I agree with Republicans that this is a stunt of sorts. It's nowhere near the territory of Clarence Thomas' office misbehavior, but different times set different standards. But I'm also with Runnin in that the Republicans have never really paid for not giving Garland a hearing. They wouldn't have had to hold a vote and they could have defeated him if they had held a vote, but the crass indifference to the process and disrespect to the administration was palpable. The evangelical right--for the most part--doesn't give two sh*ts about any of this. They will get their guy and, I would predict, the rights of any American on the margins will be diminished.
 
Then (R) would be supporting an investigation to call the (D) bluff to show the "stunt" just for what it is.

Kinda like the question around Trump and Russia, if there is nothing there then why do they continue to be caught lies
 
57Brave said:
Then (R) would be supporting an investigation to call the (D) bluff to show the "stunt" just for what it is.

Kinda like the question around Trump and Russia, if there is nothing there then why do they continue to be caught lies
Click to expand...

What would they investigate?
 
The priests that were accused of abuse.
Are you familiar with any of those stories ?
Sandusky ?
Cosby ?
The toxicity at Fox News?

Those are the high profile instances

What or where did investigators -- investigate ?




............................................................................................................................

There is this

DndNKEPU8AAfJLM.png:large
 
I don't care about Jerry Sandusky bc it is literally nothing like this case

to my knowledge the FBI doesn't investigate rape charges, even timely ones. Is that not accurate?

What about the statute of limitations?

Who the hell are they supposed to investigate? There is no dna. At best, they'll get a couple he said / she said accusations.

Ford is being evicted to speak and testify under oath. She is declining.

If that doesn't change, say hello to Supreme Court Justice Kauvanaugh
 
Not surprised you dont care about Sandusky. It has plenty to do with this case. For years people were ignored when they made "allegations" against Sandusky
As with the priests
Because ... I will let you fill in the blank

FBI does background checks on ALL judicial appointments .
In the case of Justice Thomas' confirmation they did in fact re open their investigation when Anita Hill's allegations surfaced

99.9% certain I read there is no statute of limitations for rape in Maryland

Speak yes. Testify yes -- and who is compelled to listen with an open mind with pertinent information in front of them ?
Lindsey Graham is on record saying yeah she can have her say then we are moving on

As to your last point
What is the rush ?

I am sure you know sunlight is the best disinfectant
and why is (R) keeping shade on this if there is no there there ?
 
White House Advisers Are Reportedly Fearful More Allegations About Kavanaugh Will Emerge

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-p...fearful-more-allegations-about-kavanaugh-will


White House advisers are worried that more damaging information about Kavanaugh could come out. Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors that Ford’s account will be verified by women who say she told it to them contemporaneously. People worry, without apparent evidence, of another Ronan Farrow bomb dropping. One source says Ivanka Trump has told her father to “cut bait” and drop Kavanaugh.


Interesting the above quote says "women" rather than woman.
they may get a vote and ram him through.
But this ain't goin' away
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
Not surprised you dont care about Sandusky. It has plenty to do with this case. For years people were ignored when they made "allegations" against Sandusky
As with the priests
Because ... I will let you fill in the blank

FBI does background checks on ALL judicial appointments .
In the case of Justice Thomas' confirmation they did in fact re open their investigation when Anita Hill's allegations surfaced

99.9% certain I read there is no statute of limitations for rape in Maryland

Speak yes. Testify yes -- and who is compelled to listen with an open mind with pertinent information in front of them ?
Lindsey Graham is on record saying yeah she can have her say then we are moving on

As to your last point
What is the rush ?

I am sure you know sunlight is the best disinfectant
and why is (R) keeping shade on this if there is no there there ?
Click to expand...

Sigh. PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO LISTEN TO HER BUT SHE DOESNT WANT TO SPEAK

The left is trying to drag this out for obvious political reasons. They are not interested in Justice they are interested in politics. Her rape accusation is being used to play politics. You cool with that?

Nothing is stopping her from going under oath, saying it happened... Name the names of friends, name house where it happened, etc. If she is willing to open herself up to perjury charges that alone gives her more credibility than she has now.

She won't do it.

I'm not willing to destroy a man's career and character on a 35 year old allegation... But if we do, then we will further delve our political hell hole.

I'm very willing to listen to her testimony... But she doesn't appear willing to give it.
 
57Brave said:
People are willing to listen ------
How naive you are sometimes
Click to expand...

See... This is why you are so impossible to have a rational, reasonable discussion with.

As always, the people on the right come accross so much more reasonable than the left.

Everyone on the right in this thread is saying the allegations are serious, should be heard, and if true, would be disqualifying.

But literally nothing will make you happy. You simply want to delay this to run out the clock, and you're fine using an alleged rape victim to do it, and are also fine destorying a person's life bc you assume he is not a leftist.. You also auto assume he is guilty due to nothing more than your politics.

Frankly, you're just a sad dude and I do feel bad for you
 
Run out the clock ?

Taking (R) at their word, this becomes he said she said.
A draw.
Who wins a draw?

Listen ?
You still deny the June 6 meeting
You arent going to listen. Nor is the Majority on Judicial.
Their minds are and have been made up or this wouldnt still be going
 
sturg33 said:
I don't care about Jerry Sandusky bc it is literally nothing like this case

to my knowledge the FBI doesn't investigate rape charges, even timely ones. Is that not accurate?

What about the statute of limitations?

Who the hell are they supposed to investigate? There is no dna. At best, they'll get a couple he said / she said accusations.

Ford is being evicted to speak and testify under oath. She is declining.

If that doesn't change, say hello to Supreme Court Justice Kauvanaugh
Click to expand...

It certainly is different. Sandusky wasn't in line for a lifetime appointment where his decisions could affect the lives of everyone in America.
 
50PoundHead said:
It certainly is different. Sandusky wasn't in line for a lifetime appointment where his decisions could affect the lives of everyone in America.
Click to expand...

Oh and there were multiple people who complained and went to authorities... And a bunch of victims who corroborated... Oh and it was still happening, not a one off from 35 years earlier.

But other than exact same thing!
 
My satisfaction is the least of it.

Like I said forgive my skepticism
Their letters are reasonable rational and fair when it comes to background checks, health care, climate issues and civil rights ?
Thoughts and prayers is the worn out phrase they dont even bother to trot out anymore
Sincere is not a term often associated with Republicans

The ball is not in Dr Ford's court.
and that is the point
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
Oh and there were multiple people who complained and went to authorities... And a bunch of victims who corroborated... Oh and it was still happening, not a one off from 35 years earlier.

But other than exact same thing!
Click to expand...

I agree it's not the same thing. I'm just saying that for someone who is in line of an extremely influential lifetime appointment, the bar should be a little bit higher than with a disgraced member of the jockocracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top