Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
that's exactly why i don't see this as a "stunt"; she's told people about this for a while. now that he's up for a lifetime appointment where he's going to affect the lives of everyone in america, including likely stripping away women's rights? hell yeah, it's the right and just time to come forward.
57Brave
Well-known member
Joyce Alene
Verified account @JoyceWhiteVance
Joyce Alene Retweeted Ken Dilanian
Yes. We can add this to circumstantial guarantees of Dr. Ford's truthfulness.
You don't encourage an FBI investigation unless you believe the truth is on your side.
If you think an investigation will tend to incriminate you,
you...obstruct its progress.
Ken Dilanian
Verified account @KenDilanianNBC
A number of former prosecutors and FBI agents have said
today that people who make up allegations tend not to
demand that the FBI investigate them.
Verified account @JoyceWhiteVance
Joyce Alene Retweeted Ken Dilanian
Yes. We can add this to circumstantial guarantees of Dr. Ford's truthfulness.
You don't encourage an FBI investigation unless you believe the truth is on your side.
If you think an investigation will tend to incriminate you,
you...obstruct its progress.
Ken Dilanian
Verified account @KenDilanianNBC
A number of former prosecutors and FBI agents have said
today that people who make up allegations tend not to
demand that the FBI investigate them.
57Brave
Well-known member
Joyce Alene
Verified account @JoyceWhiteVance
5h5 hours ago
The FBI reopened the 1961 bombing at 16th Baptist Church in Birmingham -
the coldest of cold cases - in 1997 & convicted 2 defendants by interviewing witnesses & uncovering new evidence.
Don’t tell me they can complete a background regarding Judge Kavanaugh’s high school conduct.
equals 36 years
Verified account @JoyceWhiteVance
5h5 hours ago
The FBI reopened the 1961 bombing at 16th Baptist Church in Birmingham -
the coldest of cold cases - in 1997 & convicted 2 defendants by interviewing witnesses & uncovering new evidence.
Don’t tell me they can complete a background regarding Judge Kavanaugh’s high school conduct.
equals 36 years
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Another point speaking at least peripherally to the general strength of her case is that she’s specifically named a witness who is a friend of the accused (also a conservative writer, published in the Daily Caller and elsewhere, and fwiw, apparently a pervy weirdo). If she were fabricating the claim, why would she name a witness who is a friend of the accused?
To clarify the alleged witness’s public statement is important, too. He has stated that he “doesn’t recollect” such an incident, which pricks up the ears of the legally-minded. That he’s not being asked to testify under oath doesn’t really square with the idea that the committee is interested in the truth here.
57Brave
Well-known member
I really don't get why (R) is/ and has been going to the mat with this guy.
Any number of right wing jurists check their litmus boxes.
Without all of this
Supposing a 40ish woman was on the fence when a year back her daughter had a similar experience.
Or another 40ish woman once had the experience of Dr Ford and too was afraid to come forward.
After carrying this for x number of years she takes this into the voting booth with her ?
It just doesn't add up.
This could have been so easy
Let's just say this is Trump's 2nd biggest mistake . After hiring Michael Flynn
Any number of right wing jurists check their litmus boxes.
Without all of this
Supposing a 40ish woman was on the fence when a year back her daughter had a similar experience.
Or another 40ish woman once had the experience of Dr Ford and too was afraid to come forward.
After carrying this for x number of years she takes this into the voting booth with her ?
It just doesn't add up.
This could have been so easy
Let's just say this is Trump's 2nd biggest mistake . After hiring Michael Flynn
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Indeed, what’s the rush? The SC functioned with 8 justices for over a year after Scalia’s death. Why does this have to get done by next Thursday? Unless, of course, those accusing the Ds of playing games are, you know, also playing games.
sturg33
I
I truly don't know why I keep engaging but the reason for the "rush" is that the accusation as it stands is not enough to completely derail a scheduled process.
That can change if she wants to bring more but she appears unwilling to.
Regardless, y'all have completely lost your ability to reason so moving on
That can change if she wants to bring more but she appears unwilling to.
Regardless, y'all have completely lost your ability to reason so moving on
What I don’t get is why no one will just say this is ancient history. The time has long since passed to investigate this and I don’t mean related to the hearings. I don’t think it’s a good precedent to act on new allegations from high school 36 years later when there is no evidence of more recent conduct.
For the record I hate Trump, and I don’t want Kavenaugh on the court. I also think if they had any decency they would have given Garland a vote. If they wanted to block him they could have at least had the decency to go on record about why they objected to him rather than not scheduling hearings.
Anything having to do with women is going to bring a lynch mob. I remember when Democrats were far more likely to defend people who were accused than to act as the agent of various groups who see themselves as victims and want to weaponize the government to railroad people. I wouldn’t want to have a hearing on this in today’s environment.
For the record I hate Trump, and I don’t want Kavenaugh on the court. I also think if they had any decency they would have given Garland a vote. If they wanted to block him they could have at least had the decency to go on record about why they objected to him rather than not scheduling hearings.
Anything having to do with women is going to bring a lynch mob. I remember when Democrats were far more likely to defend people who were accused than to act as the agent of various groups who see themselves as victims and want to weaponize the government to railroad people. I wouldn’t want to have a hearing on this in today’s environment.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
The FBI investigation into Anita Hill’s allegation took two weeks. They could interview Ford, her husband, the therapist, Kavanaugh, Judge, and any of their contemporaries in that amount of time or less, and the committee could use their findings to hold further hearings, if necessary. I’m not sure why you think this is unreasonable, except that you seem to think that opinions that diverge from your own are necessarily so.
Personally, I don’t think that Kavanaugh has been transparent or forthcoming enough to warrant a vote. That there’s such a hurry to schedule the vote is in itself an abuse of process, so complaining about “derailing a scheduled process” rings kind of hollow to me.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I agree that it sounds sketchy.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
My new tinfoil hat theory:
Accuser goes away.
Lady that remembers second hand rumors from 35 years ago goes away.
Dems grumble but back off from the fight and Kavanaugh is confirmed.
Then in 2/4/6/however many years when Dems take control of Senate and White House, they cry foul over Garland and Kavanaugh and use that to justify packing the SC with additional justices.
Accuser goes away.
Lady that remembers second hand rumors from 35 years ago goes away.
Dems grumble but back off from the fight and Kavanaugh is confirmed.
Then in 2/4/6/however many years when Dems take control of Senate and White House, they cry foul over Garland and Kavanaugh and use that to justify packing the SC with additional justices.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I mean, we can trace this all the way back to Ted Kennedy if tit for tat is the goal.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I mean...ok, maybe. But we’ve had, what, 3 big fights over SCOTUS nominees in recent history?
Bork was a legit extremist with significant disqualifying factors. Christ, he was the guy in the DOJ chain of command whom Nixon found to fire Archibald Cox after the AG and his deputy had refused and resigned. That alone should have disqualified him. 6 Republicans voted against him, and not because of Ted Kennedy’s speech.
Then Clarence Thomas, noted sex pest. It was ultimately a Democrat, ol’ Uncle Joe Biden, who refused to allow testimony that would have corroborated Anita Hill’s accounts.
Next, Merrick Garland. No more need be said about that one, I guess.
You can play the tit-for-tat card, but I’m not sure how that dog really hunts. None of the last crop of D nominees—Garland, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer—has been nearly as far to the left as the Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito, et al are to the right. And, really, what do political niceties and norms really mean, post-Trump? If there’s a backlash, it’s hard to say it wasn’t earned.
I think the operating principle of Republican politics has been anti-(small d)emocratic above all else. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, state-level shenanigans (Wisconsin deciding that special elections are optional, NC legislature calling a special session to try to neuter the Governor’s office after their guy lost), emphasizing the federal judiciary uber allies—it’s a snapshot of a party which still floats on plutocratic billions, but has seen its electoral power withering and dying. I’ll grant that it’s been both smart and successful, but in light of all that, whining about today’s, and possibly tomorrow’s, counter-moves seems kinda pathetic.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
My point was that the back and forth escalation by both sides has landed us here. That's not something I would be hopeful of either side continuing.
Kagan and Sotomayor aren't as far to the left as Roberts and Kavanaugh are to the right? Perhaps, if your view is from the left side. It certainly seems like Roberts has crossed over on more high impact cases than any of the liberals on the court have.
I agree that the way Garland was handled was slimy. That's easily the most legitimate complaint either side has in my mind.
Do you really find your list of grievances in the last paragraph more odious than the Ds identity politics, open borders to import voters, ever more handouts to buy votes, attacks on the parts of the Bill of Rights they don't like, calls to abolish ICE, and calling Every. Single. Person. who disagrees with them racist/sexist/whateverist? (Fun fact- I was once called a racist for having a Herman Cain bumper sticker.) That doesn't get into the nearly continual and almost completely one sided stream of propaganda from academia and media.
As for federal judiciary allies...how many states voted to legalize gay marriage prior to the federal judiciary forcing it on them? How many states would deem a viable pregnancy to be a person with rights, if the federal judiciary would let them?
It doesn't sound to me that picking sides like kids in an elementary school yard and hoping for continued escalation is the best way forward.
Kagan and Sotomayor aren't as far to the left as Roberts and Kavanaugh are to the right? Perhaps, if your view is from the left side. It certainly seems like Roberts has crossed over on more high impact cases than any of the liberals on the court have.
I agree that the way Garland was handled was slimy. That's easily the most legitimate complaint either side has in my mind.
Do you really find your list of grievances in the last paragraph more odious than the Ds identity politics, open borders to import voters, ever more handouts to buy votes, attacks on the parts of the Bill of Rights they don't like, calls to abolish ICE, and calling Every. Single. Person. who disagrees with them racist/sexist/whateverist? (Fun fact- I was once called a racist for having a Herman Cain bumper sticker.) That doesn't get into the nearly continual and almost completely one sided stream of propaganda from academia and media.
As for federal judiciary allies...how many states voted to legalize gay marriage prior to the federal judiciary forcing it on them? How many states would deem a viable pregnancy to be a person with rights, if the federal judiciary would let them?
It doesn't sound to me that picking sides like kids in an elementary school yard and hoping for continued escalation is the best way forward.