Legal/scotus thread

Runnin said:
He's not in line for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. If he were, stuff he did a long time ago would surely be discussed.
Click to expand...

lol right.

He was celebrated during the questioning of the Kavanaugh (remember the "sparticus" thing?)

So we celebrated an admitted sexual abuser in order to take down an alleged one who categorically denied it.

Anyhow, we'll see how Mr. Booker is treated in 2020
 
Krgrecw said:
I thought the witnesses that she named had no recollection of the events happening?
Click to expand...

One, Mark Judge, did. Not under oath, though. If it’s fair to get her story under oath, I’m not sure why it should be any different for him.

Legally speaking, this is not a difficult call, is it? While it would be better to have these individuals interviewed ahead of time, since we’re insisting that a senate hearing is the only way to proceed, this is the only way to make that hearing approach fairness. This is not gamesmanship, just simple fair play.
 
Super said:
John Harwood
‏
Verified account

@JohnJHarwood
Follow Follow @JohnJHarwood
More
Hugh Hewitt 2/16 on Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland: “Republicans are under no obligation to hold a hearing much less a vote”

Hewitt 9/18 decrying allegations against Kavanaugh: “Seriously, due process is a real concept, deeply embedded in Anglo-American law and politics”


pointing out the blatant hypocrisy is old and tired but goddamn it never ends.
Click to expand...

Hewitt is making two wildly different points here that aren't hypocritical at all... intelligent people should stop equating Garland and Kavanaugh situations
 
Julio3000 said:
One, Mark Judge, did. Not under oath, though. If it’s fair to get her story under oath, I’m not sure why it should be any different for him.

Legally speaking, this is not a difficult call, is it? While it would be better to have these individuals interviewed ahead of time, since we’re insisting that a senate hearing is the only way to proceed, this is the only way to make that hearing approach fairness. This is not gamesmanship, just simple fair play.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Republicans in the Senate are fighting to stop this. Ford is the one who hasn't committed yet
 
This is a very simple question.

Which has more probative value: a hearing with testimony from all potential witnesses, or one which features only the alleged victim and accused?
 
Julio3000 said:
This is a very simple question.

Which has more probative value: a hearing with testimony from all potential witnesses, or one which features only the alleged victim and accused?
Click to expand...

I'd be just fine with that.

Has she even named anyone else besides Judge?
 
57Brave said:
WaPo reporting Whelen had Dr Ford's name before it became public.
Hmm
Click to expand...

The media has been so shameful olof their coverage of this whole situation. I've never seen such rampant and wild speculation with no facts to back it up.

I guess nothing new though
 
Meanwhile, Keith Ellison decided to accuse his accuser of making it all up.

I'm sure there will be a march soon for his calling a victim a liar.

Right?
 
My life has taught me allegations in this vein are damning .
Be it guilty of the accused act or guilty of a lack of judgement of place and/or company.
 
sturg33 said:
The media has been so shameful olof their coverage of this whole situation. I've never seen such rampant and wild speculation with no facts to back it up.

I guess nothing new though
Click to expand...

Has the media adequately shown how hypocritical the GOP has become?

Have they adequately reported that Kavanaugh has already lied repeatedly under oath?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top