Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

Yay!
Nay!
Who cares? The SCOTUS doesn't matter anyways.

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72419 times)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1350 on: October 06, 2018, 02:10:24 PM »
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

No. Assaulted people don't forget certain details. As Dr. Ford explained in her testimony, neurotransmitters like epinephrine encode traumatic memories into the hippocampus.

My two friends were attacked in the same fashion Dr. Ford was and in the same geographic area. I was present for one yet we stopped the attack before he got to me. I remember all of the details. You don't forget.

Plenty of other nominees have not had victims come forward, and those could have been chosen instead.

He was wanted by powerful political donors, who have won.

I was assaulted twice, by two different people.

You are wrong.

crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1351 on: October 06, 2018, 02:18:40 PM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

And there it is. You do not care that a nominee for the Supreme Court lied under oath.

That pretty well sums it up.

Your words, not mine. I think the only person who lied under oath is Dr. Ford.  I just don't care that he drank too much which is something he freely admitted to.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1352 on: October 06, 2018, 02:24:39 PM »
Whether you think he sexually assualted a woman, or whether you care if he did, he lied repeatedly under oath. Not lying under oath is basically the foundation of our justice system.

And now he has a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1353 on: October 06, 2018, 02:33:06 PM »
Whether you think he sexually assualted a woman, or whether you care if he did, he lied repeatedly under oath. Not lying under oath is basically the foundation of our justice system.

And now he has a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

I would go with presumption of innocence myself.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1354 on: October 06, 2018, 02:45:48 PM »
Whether you think he sexually assualted a woman, or whether you care if he did, he lied repeatedly under oath. Not lying under oath is basically the foundation of our justice system.

And now he has a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

I would go with presumption of innocence myself.

We don't need to presume either way since we have proof. Yes, he lied under oath, repeatedly.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1355 on: October 06, 2018, 02:50:28 PM »
I'm kinda wondering if Russia's covert executions (which are pretty well documented at this point) could soon extend to the Democratic candidates on the supreme court to give Trump even more picks.  Their goal of destabilizing the US by getting Trump elected worked, and this would tip things even further off-kilter.

With Kavenaugh on the court, advocating that the President of the US can't do any wrong, Trump could directly aid the Russians in performing the executions with no repercussions . . . it's not like the Republicans would complain.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 02:55:18 PM by GuitarStv »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1356 on: October 06, 2018, 02:51:40 PM »
To anyone defending the republican stance at this point, you believe that there is a possibility Ford is lying. From where I'm sitting, that seems pretty unlikely, but yes, it's possible. So the Democrats took that information and asked for an investigation. Seems reasonable, right? They didn't stand up and point fingers and call Kavanaugh a disgrace. People did, but not democratic leadership.

Now look at the response. Kavanaugh accused Ford of lying, which again, is a possibility. We don't know that, all we have is his word, but it's possible. The proper response would be the same as the democrat's, let's have an investigation. Instead Senator Graham stands up and begins to hurl accusations, point fingers, and call the democrats a disgrace. Does Graham know what happened? Was he there in 1982? Why is OK for Lindsey to call her a liar without proof?

Don't you feel a twinge of hypocrisy here?

There's only two people who know what really happened and possibly only one as Kavanaugh may have been blackout drunk at the time. Which, oh by the way, he lied about under oath. We may not have solid corroboration of what happened that night (not getting into that debate) but we do have solid corroboration of the accusations that he was a sloppy drunk who got belligerently drunk.

ETA: Here's a sample of what I was referring to from an interview with James Roche, freshmen year roommate of Kavanaugh.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/03/kavanaugh_freshman_roommate_i_saw_him_do_stuff_he_said_under_oath_he_didnt_do.html

Quote
"I saw him do this stuff he said under oath that he didn't do. I saw him use words in a different way than the way he said under oath they were used," Roche said.

Quote
"Your bed was just as you said, feet away from his. Did you ever see him black out? He has testified that -- he was asked about blacking out. He said he didnít. He said maybe sometimes he went to sleep. Did you ever see him black out?" Cooper asked.

"You know I didnít socialize with Brett. But being in the same room where he slept, I saw him when he arrived at home regularly and I saw him in the morning. And I can tell you that -- that he would come home and he was incoherent, stumbling," Roche responded.

"He would sometimes be singing," Roche explained. "He occasionally would wear this -- I think it was an old leather football helmet and he would throw up. And then in the morning would have a lot of trouble getting out of bed."
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 03:06:24 PM by Dabnasty »

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1357 on: October 06, 2018, 02:58:31 PM »
Also maybe give the FBI more than one week to investigate? Benghazi was investigated by Republicans for years. You can spare more than one week to investigate felony allegations against a Supreme Court nominee. And actually let the FBI investigate. Let them interview people. Make more than one fucking copy of the report, and release that report to the public.


Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1359 on: October 06, 2018, 03:19:57 PM »
Wow, so it came down to Manchin. I was stunned when Hillary lost. I'm worried now. This farce of an investigation  and complete disregard for  country in favor of partisanship may have resulted in a "win," but the anger of the left, the unheard, and the voters who outnumber them in the millions who simply will not accept this result may have cost the party and the govt as a whole the one thing that holds everything together, left, right, or center. Legitimacy.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1360 on: October 06, 2018, 03:27:19 PM »
Fascists aren't concerned about legitimacy.

FIRE_Buckeye

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Age: 29
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1361 on: October 06, 2018, 03:31:01 PM »
Wow, so it came down to Manchin.
The job of a state Senator is to represent the people of his or her state. Manchin's state is dark red West Virginia. If people want to place blame, it should probably be directed elsewhere.


bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1362 on: October 06, 2018, 03:32:37 PM »
Wow, so it came down to Manchin. I was stunned when Hillary lost. I'm worried now. This farce of an investigation  and complete disregard for  country in favor of partisanship may have resulted in a "win," but the anger of the left, the unheard, and the voters who outnumber them in the millions who simply will not accept this result may have cost the party and the govt as a whole the one thing that holds everything together, left, right, or center. Legitimacy.

It'll be interesting to see how Roberts plays this. If Kavanaugh (and Thomas) make partisan decisions, is Roberts forced to balance out the decision?

When the Court is so far right of the populace, how does it become less partisan?


Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1363 on: October 06, 2018, 03:35:08 PM »
When the Court is so far right of the populace, how does it become less partisan?

By the populace actually voting, thereby electing Democrats, who impeach Kavanaugh or pack the court or both.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1364 on: October 06, 2018, 03:42:25 PM »
When the Court is so far right of the populace, how does it become less partisan?

By the populace actually voting, thereby electing Democrats, who impeach Kavanaugh or pack the court or both.

The Senate will always lean conservative. It's the nature of the system. 90% of the population could be in 5 states, who elect Democratic Senators, and the other 45 states with 10% of the population could elect Republicans.

Without the Senate, there is no impeaching. There is no packing the court. There is nothing.

Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4358
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1365 on: October 06, 2018, 03:50:43 PM »
When the Court is so far right of the populace, how does it become less partisan?

By the populace actually voting, thereby electing Democrats, who impeach Kavanaugh or pack the court or both.

The Senate will always lean conservative. It's the nature of the system. 90% of the population could be in 5 states, who elect Democratic Senators, and the other 45 states with 10% of the population could elect Republicans.

Without the Senate, there is no impeaching. There is no packing the court. There is nothing.

Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?
The executive branch is responsible for enforcement when the local governments won't do it. The Brown decision comes to mind.

On the flip side, the executive branch choosing to selectively enforce laws isn't exactly news.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1366 on: October 06, 2018, 03:57:00 PM »
When the Court is so far right of the populace, how does it become less partisan?

By the populace actually voting, thereby electing Democrats, who impeach Kavanaugh or pack the court or both.

The Senate will always lean conservative. It's the nature of the system. 90% of the population could be in 5 states, who elect Democratic Senators, and the other 45 states with 10% of the population could elect Republicans.

Without the Senate, there is no impeaching. There is no packing the court. There is nothing.

Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5826
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1367 on: October 06, 2018, 04:00:21 PM »
ooof I keep reading page after page about "the only witnesses in the room (Mark Judge & Co.) don't corroborate Dr Ford's testimony.

Do you really think Mr Judge is going to come out and say "yep, we did it, me and Brett are both rapists"? Of course he is going to deny, obfuscate, and claim he had no memory. If the standard of proof you require for an assault to maybe have occurred or to make a victim believable is that co-conspirators need to confess, then you guys might as well implement Sharia Law now (4 male witnesses required for a rape to be prosecuted) and be done with the whole system.


bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1368 on: October 06, 2018, 04:02:30 PM »
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 04:17:17 PM by bacchi »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1369 on: October 06, 2018, 04:08:34 PM »
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.




crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1370 on: October 06, 2018, 04:18:12 PM »
ooof I keep reading page after page about "the only witnesses in the room (Mark Judge & Co.) don't corroborate Dr Ford's testimony.

Do you really think Mr Judge is going to come out and say "yep, we did it, me and Brett are both rapists"? Of course he is going to deny, obfuscate, and claim he had no memory. If the standard of proof you require for an assault to maybe have occurred or to make a victim believable is that co-conspirators need to confess, then you guys might as well implement Sharia Law now (4 male witnesses required for a rape to be prosecuted) and be done with the whole system.

Her best friend doesn't corroborate her story. Stated repeatedly under oath that she had never met Brett Kavanaugh.

Comparing a 36 year old sexual assault allegation with no collaborating evidence to sharia law is despicable and a straw man to boot.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5826
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1371 on: October 06, 2018, 04:31:19 PM »
ooof I keep reading page after page about "the only witnesses in the room (Mark Judge & Co.) don't corroborate Dr Ford's testimony.

Do you really think Mr Judge is going to come out and say "yep, we did it, me and Brett are both rapists"? Of course he is going to deny, obfuscate, and claim he had no memory. If the standard of proof you require for an assault to maybe have occurred or to make a victim believable is that co-conspirators need to confess, then you guys might as well implement Sharia Law now (4 male witnesses required for a rape to be prosecuted) and be done with the whole system.

Her best friend doesn't corroborate her story. Stated repeatedly under oath that she had never met Brett Kavanaugh.

Comparing a 36 year old sexual assault allegation with no collaborating evidence to sharia law is despicable and a straw man to boot.

She doesn't have to "know" exactly who Brett Kavanaugh or to have been in the room to see it happen. I've been to many parties where I haven't known everyone there personally.

She has stated that she believes Dr. Ford was assaulted. People who went to HS and College with Kavanaugh have stated he is outright lying about his drinking habits. I don't care that he drinks, I care that he lies about it.

I stand by the comment. You and others here are asking for eyewitness testimony by people who watched it happen - bearing in mind he is not on trial, we are only looking at character here. No one is asking for criminal evidence.

Circumstantial inferences into his character should be enough to say "nope, not good enough to be one of the 9 people in charge of interpreting the laws of the country".

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1372 on: October 06, 2018, 04:46:11 PM »
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.

One law or ruling, no the system will continue. Ignoring several of them, people will start wondering about legitimacy. And inevitably one will be curious if the laws are being selectively applied.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1373 on: October 06, 2018, 04:51:18 PM »
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I've only got one kid.

Were it my son accused, I'd have been loudly clamouring for a full investigation into the matter to clear his name.  Having a half assed, limited investigation that explicitly ignores evidence, testimony, the prime actors, and three of four charges brought against my son certainly wouldn't do . . . it would just make it look like we were hiding something.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1374 on: October 06, 2018, 05:08:29 PM »
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.

One law or ruling, no the system will continue. Ignoring several of them, people will start wondering about legitimacy. And inevitably one will be curious if the laws are being selectively applied.

The 50 Senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and who decided to ignore Garland, represent less than 50% of the populace (one estimate is 37%). They've stacked the court to push their opinions on the rest of the country. It's a tyranny of the minority.

In other words, we already have a legitimacy problem. Even Roberts recognizes that, especially after Kavanaugh's tantrum.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1375 on: October 06, 2018, 05:21:34 PM »
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.

One law or ruling, no the system will continue. Ignoring several of them, people will start wondering about legitimacy. And inevitably one will be curious if the laws are being selectively applied.

The 50 Senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and who decided to ignore Garland, represent less than 50% of the populace (one estimate is 37%). They've stacked the court to push their opinions on the rest of the country. It's a tyranny of the minority.

In other words, we already have a legitimacy problem. Even Roberts recognizes that, especially after Kavanaugh's tantrum.

That is how our system works. Every state gets equal representation in the Senate. It's a balance against populus states which are supposed to be represented in the house of Representatives.

I'd rather not get into this debate again, (monkey Uncle had a thread on it). If you think there is an issue of legitimacy, I'll leave you to do what you think is necessary.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1376 on: October 06, 2018, 05:29:41 PM »
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.

One law or ruling, no the system will continue. Ignoring several of them, people will start wondering about legitimacy. And inevitably one will be curious if the laws are being selectively applied.

The 50 Senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and who decided to ignore Garland, represent less than 50% of the populace (one estimate is 37%). They've stacked the court to push their opinions on the rest of the country. It's a tyranny of the minority.

In other words, we already have a legitimacy problem. Even Roberts recognizes that, especially after Kavanaugh's tantrum.

That is how our system works. Every state gets equal representation in the Senate. It's a balance against populus states which are supposed to be represented in the house of Representatives.

I'd rather not get into this debate again, (monkey Uncle had a thread on it). If you think there is an issue of legitimacy, I'll leave you to do what you think is necessary.

Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1377 on: October 06, 2018, 05:35:52 PM »
As recommended by another member in the Stat thread, I feel I need to apologize here as well. Few days ago I posted several stat posts here arguing given a single allegation, the odds of being guilty was 26%.

I have been wrong this whole time. I sincerely apologize to all. It was not my intention to be malicious or gross, I had genuinely believed what I said was true. Regardless, what I said was indeed counterfactual.  The odds of being guilty off a single accusation is not 26%, it's much higher. I am sorry.

I want to thank Caroline PF and Maize especially as their step-by-step guidance made my error glaringly clear (even to a halfwit such as myself).

Regards,


bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1378 on: October 06, 2018, 05:39:11 PM »

That is how our system works. Every state gets equal representation in the Senate. It's a balance against populus states which are supposed to be represented in the house of Representatives.

I'd rather not get into this debate again, (monkey Uncle had a thread on it). If you think there is an issue of legitimacy, I'll leave you to do what you think is necessary.

Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

Yep. Urbanization and farm-automation has broken the Senate.

I expect Roberts will have to begrudgingly stand in the middle-of-the-road now, as he did for the ACA case.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1379 on: October 06, 2018, 05:47:12 PM »
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I've only got one kid.

Were it my son accused, I'd have been loudly clamouring for a full investigation into the matter to clear his name.  Having a half assed, limited investigation that explicitly ignores evidence, testimony, the prime actors, and three of four charges brought against my son certainly wouldn't do . . . it would just make it look like we were hiding something.
Let's hope you (and we) never have to test that theory.

One can reasonably posit two scenarios:
1) Kavanaugh knows he is guilty but that a limited investigation won't find anything.
2) Kavanaugh knows he is innocent but that a long investigation may or may not find anything exculpatory, and would last so long that the Senate balance might shift.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1380 on: October 06, 2018, 05:52:29 PM »
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I've only got one kid.

Were it my son accused, I'd have been loudly clamouring for a full investigation into the matter to clear his name.  Having a half assed, limited investigation that explicitly ignores evidence, testimony, the prime actors, and three of four charges brought against my son certainly wouldn't do . . . it would just make it look like we were hiding something.
Let's hope you (and we) never have to test that theory.

One can reasonably posit two scenarios:
1) Kavanaugh knows he is guilty but that a limited investigation won't find anything.
2) Kavanaugh knows he is innocent but that a long investigation may or may not find anything exculpatory, and would last so long that the Senate balance might shift.

3) Kavanaugh is pretty sure he's innocent but can't be absolutely certain, if he's honest with himself, because a) he might've been too drunk to remember; and b) the assault was at one more party during the post-100-keg summer and wasn't memorable for him or Judge.

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1381 on: October 06, 2018, 06:19:10 PM »
Apropos the FBI investigation: Senator Feinstein Wondering If Now A Good Time To Disclose 7 Highly Credible Murder Allegations Against Kavanaugh She Received Weeks Ago

Those upset about the short investigation should blame Senator Feinstein for sitting on the allegations for weeks, a blatant political ploy to wait until the 11th hour as a stalling tactic. The time to make these known was when they came to the Senator so they could be investigated in normal due course. The ploy didn't work and now seems this shitshow may have energized the GOP base.

The most surprising thing for me is how quiet it is here in left of left Santa Cruz. This town protests anything and everything at the drop of a hat, yet very little activity today as we biked around with the family (counted one lone protestor). Maybe it will come later, or maybe it's a sign of outrage fatigue?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1382 on: October 06, 2018, 06:45:59 PM »
I would go with presumption of innocence myself.
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I have to wonder if you guys are aware of our civil court system that already exists.  It doesn't use either of the standards of proof that republicans keep implying are sacrosanct ("Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Innocent until proven guilty").  The civil court system even has the power to force the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff, taking away their already earned belongings as opposed to simply not giving them a prestigious position within our government that they don't yet have and are not entitled to in any way.

So I have to ask, how much time have you guys spent lobbying your representative to change this grievously unfair system?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1383 on: October 06, 2018, 06:58:45 PM »
So I have to ask, how much time have you guys spent lobbying your representative to change this grievously unfair system?
For me, zero.  Same as the amount of time I've spent arguing against civil asset forfeiture.  Not that I agree with the policy, but one has to pick one's battles.

crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1384 on: October 06, 2018, 07:05:57 PM »
I would go with presumption of innocence myself.
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I have to wonder if you guys are aware of our civil court system that already exists.  It doesn't use either of the standards of proof that republicans keep implying are sacrosanct ("Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Innocent until proven guilty").  The civil court system even has the power to force the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff, taking away their already earned belongings as opposed to simply not giving them a prestigious position within our government that they don't yet have and are not entitled to in any way.

So I have to ask, how much time have you guys spent lobbying your representative to change this grievously unfair system?

I legit don't understand your point. Civil law and criminal law have different burdens of proof. This obviously was not trial except in the court of public opinion, but in a criminal trial there is a presumption of innocence and to be found guilty the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sexual assault would be a criminal matter so there is a higher burden of proof.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 07:07:42 PM by crispy »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1385 on: October 06, 2018, 07:21:10 PM »
I would go with presumption of innocence myself.
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I have to wonder if you guys are aware of our civil court system that already exists.  It doesn't use either of the standards of proof that republicans keep implying are sacrosanct ("Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Innocent until proven guilty").  The civil court system even has the power to force the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff, taking away their already earned belongings as opposed to simply not giving them a prestigious position within our government that they don't yet have and are not entitled to in any way.

So I have to ask, how much time have you guys spent lobbying your representative to change this grievously unfair system?

I legit don't understand your point. Civil law and criminal law have different burdens of proof. This obviously was not trial except in the court of public opinion, but in a criminal trial there is a presumption of innocence and to be found guilty the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sexual assault would be a criminal matter so there is a higher burden of proof.

Higher burden of proof because the punishment is more severe. Years of your life spent in a cell with dangerous people, more years of probation, and being placed on the sex offender registry for life. We're talking about not promoting someone to the supreme court.

Even in criminal matters we put people in jail for days, months, sometimes even years before they see a courtroom. All too often we then find out, they weren't guilty. Another issue I suppose, but as long as we're discussing rights and wrongs of the legal system...

ETA: shoot, sorry shenlong. I gave away the answer :)
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 07:26:54 PM by Dabnasty »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1386 on: October 06, 2018, 07:23:28 PM »
I would go with presumption of innocence myself.
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I have to wonder if you guys are aware of our civil court system that already exists.  It doesn't use either of the standards of proof that republicans keep implying are sacrosanct ("Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Innocent until proven guilty").  The civil court system even has the power to force the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff, taking away their already earned belongings as opposed to simply not giving them a prestigious position within our government that they don't yet have and are not entitled to in any way.

So I have to ask, how much time have you guys spent lobbying your representative to change this grievously unfair system?

I legit don't understand your point. Civil law and criminal law have different burdens of proof. This obviously was not trial except in the court of public opinion, but in a criminal trial there is a presumption of innocence and to be found guilty the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sexual assault would be a criminal matter so there is a higher burden of proof.

May I ask why you think it is that we have different standards of proof in the two systems?

ETA: @Dabnasty That's okay, @crispy may have a different reason for thinking that it's okay to have a lower standard of proof for civil trials, so the question still stands.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 09:59:43 PM by shenlong55 »

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3059
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1387 on: October 06, 2018, 07:51:50 PM »
I'm kinda wondering if Russia's covert executions (which are pretty well documented at this point) could soon extend to the Democratic candidates on the supreme court to give Trump even more picks.  Their goal of destabilizing the US by getting Trump elected worked, and this would tip things even further off-kilter.

With Kavenaugh on the court, advocating that the President of the US can't do any wrong, Trump could directly aid the Russians in performing the executions with no repercussions . . . it's not like the Republicans would complain.

I have wondered when the Russians will begin killing Americans on American soil. They do have Trump in place as they wanted.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1388 on: October 06, 2018, 08:23:11 PM »
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

No. Assaulted people don't forget certain details. As Dr. Ford explained in her testimony, neurotransmitters like epinephrine encode traumatic memories into the hippocampus.

My two friends were attacked in the same fashion Dr. Ford was and in the same geographic area. I was present for one yet we stopped the attack before he got to me. I remember all of the details. You don't forget.

Plenty of other nominees have not had victims come forward, and those could have been chosen instead.

He was wanted by powerful political donors, who have won.

There is literally an entire field of research that contradicts your claim. Heck, it's even well documented that folks can even block out entire traumatic events.

But hey your anecdotes are just more shitty excuses to claim Ford is lying. Deplorable!
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 08:25:41 PM by MasterStache »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1389 on: October 06, 2018, 10:54:15 PM »
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

It was always a waste of time, from the outset.  Republicans control the Senate, and the Senate controls confirmations, and they could have put a convicted child molester on the court if they wanted to.  It literally couldn't matter any less what anyone said. 

At least with Roy Moore, the public got to vote.  With Kavanaugh, there was nothing anybody was ever going to be able to do as long as Republicans wanted it.  They put the least popular justice in generations on the SC, despite the bar association and former justices opposing him, despite multiple credible accusations of sexual misconduct, despite documented cases of lying under oath, but none of it matters. 

Nothing matters until people learn to vote for people who will represent them.  Until then, money buys power and power makes decisions for people without money.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1390 on: October 07, 2018, 12:59:35 AM »
Fighting and losing is not always a waste of time, sol.  In this case new information came out about Kavanaugh (both Dr Ford's and his own behaviour in response to them) which is informative.  The Democrats didn't just roll over and show their bellies either, which is also useful.

Bateaux

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Location: Port Vincent
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1391 on: October 07, 2018, 01:08:54 AM »
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

It was always a waste of time, from the outset.  Republicans control the Senate, and the Senate controls confirmations, and they could have put a convicted child molester on the court if they wanted to.  It literally couldn't matter any less what anyone said. 

At least with Roy Moore, the public got to vote.  With Kavanaugh, there was nothing anybody was ever going to be able to do as long as Republicans wanted it.  They put the least popular justice in generations on the SC, despite the bar association and former justices opposing him, despite multiple credible accusations of sexual misconduct, despite documented cases of lying under oath, but none of it matters. 

Nothing matters until people learn to vote for people who will represent them.  Until then, money buys power and power makes decisions for people without money.

I'm close to setting up a touring bicycle and just saying fuck to it all.  The future I'd hoped for our nation isn't happening.  My life clock is ticking louder every day saying just FIRE-FIRE-FIRE.  Many of the everyday people who will be effected the most don't seem to give a shit.  Why the Hell should I? 

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1392 on: October 07, 2018, 03:50:51 AM »
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

It was always a waste of time, from the outset.  Republicans control the Senate, and the Senate controls confirmations, and they could have put a convicted child molester on the court if they wanted to.  It literally couldn't matter any less what anyone said. 

At least with Roy Moore, the public got to vote.  With Kavanaugh, there was nothing anybody was ever going to be able to do as long as Republicans wanted it.  They put the least popular justice in generations on the SC, despite the bar association and former justices opposing him, despite multiple credible accusations of sexual misconduct, despite documented cases of lying under oath, but none of it matters. 

Nothing matters until people learn to vote for people who will represent them.  Until then, money buys power and power makes decisions for people without money.

What does matter is that Ford did appear and tell her side of the story and it did come out that Kav is NO choir boy. It is important for women to come forward and be heard. No, we did not get the outcome, we the people, wanted but his reputation is forever stained and it will go into the history books. It takes courageous people to start change. Rosa Parks is an example of a courageous woman who refused to give up her seat to a white person while segregation was still enforced. Change for the better takes time. Maybe once these old geezers are gone, with their backward thinking, change will happen.

I agree with you Sol, they could have put in anyone with any reputation and were hell bent to get what they wanted if they had to lie, cheat or steal to get it done. Then they try to convince everyone that it was done fair and square and they didn't leave any rock unturned to find the truth.

Michael in ABQ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
    • Military Saints
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1393 on: October 07, 2018, 06:02:15 AM »
Apropos the FBI investigation: Senator Feinstein Wondering If Now A Good Time To Disclose 7 Highly Credible Murder Allegations Against Kavanaugh She Received Weeks Ago

Those upset about the short investigation should blame Senator Feinstein for sitting on the allegations for weeks, a blatant political ploy to wait until the 11th hour as a stalling tactic. The time to make these known was when they came to the Senator so they could be investigated in normal due course. The ploy didn't work and now seems this shitshow may have energized the GOP base.

The most surprising thing for me is how quiet it is here in left of left Santa Cruz. This town protests anything and everything at the drop of a hat, yet very little activity today as we biked around with the family (counted one lone protestor). Maybe it will come later, or maybe it's a sign of outrage fatigue?

This.

Many people saw this as a calculated smear campaign by Democrats and it simply made Republicans all that more defensive about the whole thing, thus ensuring that his nomination would be pushed through. Had these allegations come out during the normal process (and assuming they were true) there would likely have been a quiet decision to withdraw Kavanaugh from consideration and pick someone else.


The deeper problem is the politicization of the judicial branch reflects directly on the executive branch amassing power over the last century or so while the legislative branch has continually abdicated it's power. Supreme Court nominee one wouldn't matter so much if Congress did it's job and didn't punt the hard decisions to the Supreme Court in an effort to keep their hands cleaner so they can focus on getting reelected for life.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1394 on: October 07, 2018, 06:52:28 AM »
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.

One law or ruling, no the system will continue. Ignoring several of them, people will start wondering about legitimacy. And inevitably one will be curious if the laws are being selectively applied.

The 50 Senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and who decided to ignore Garland, represent less than 50% of the populace (one estimate is 37%). They've stacked the court to push their opinions on the rest of the country. It's a tyranny of the minority.

In other words, we already have a legitimacy problem. Even Roberts recognizes that, especially after Kavanaugh's tantrum.

That is how our system works. Every state gets equal representation in the Senate. It's a balance against populus states which are supposed to be represented in the house of Representatives.

I'd rather not get into this debate again, (monkey Uncle had a thread on it). If you think there is an issue of legitimacy, I'll leave you to do what you think is necessary.

Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1395 on: October 07, 2018, 07:23:59 AM »
Apropos the FBI investigation: Senator Feinstein Wondering If Now A Good Time To Disclose 7 Highly Credible Murder Allegations Against Kavanaugh She Received Weeks Ago

Those upset about the short investigation should blame Senator Feinstein for sitting on the allegations for weeks, a blatant political ploy to wait until the 11th hour as a stalling tactic. The time to make these known was when they came to the Senator so they could be investigated in normal due course. The ploy didn't work and now seems this shitshow may have energized the GOP base.

The most surprising thing for me is how quiet it is here in left of left Santa Cruz. This town protests anything and everything at the drop of a hat, yet very little activity today as we biked around with the family (counted one lone protestor). Maybe it will come later, or maybe it's a sign of outrage fatigue?

This.

Many people saw this as a calculated smear campaign by Democrats and it simply made Republicans all that more defensive about the whole thing, thus ensuring that his nomination would be pushed through. Had these allegations come out during the normal process (and assuming they were true) there would likely have been a quiet decision to withdraw Kavanaugh from consideration and pick someone else.

I don't buy this for a second. Republicans would have claimed smear campaign no matter the timing. Mitch and others were claiming Kavanaugh would be approved even as the allegations were just coming to light. Let's not pretend people like him would have had some moral compass if the allegations came out a month earlier. That in and of itself also proves that they could give a shit less about the truthful nature of the allegations.

Blaming Feinstein for a short investigation is just another example of some fucked up mental gymnastics to put this all on Dems. Who controlled the investigation and limited it's scope on purpose? Wait for it...... Republicans!!! Kavanaugh was going to get pushed through no matter what. Just ask Mitch!
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 09:57:01 AM by MasterStache »

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1396 on: October 07, 2018, 07:46:12 AM »
Apropos the FBI investigation: Senator Feinstein Wondering If Now A Good Time To Disclose 7 Highly Credible Murder Allegations Against Kavanaugh She Received Weeks Ago

Those upset about the short investigation should blame Senator Feinstein for sitting on the allegations for weeks, a blatant political ploy to wait until the 11th hour as a stalling tactic. The time to make these known was when they came to the Senator so they could be investigated in normal due course. The ploy didn't work and now seems this shitshow may have energized the GOP base.

The most surprising thing for me is how quiet it is here in left of left Santa Cruz. This town protests anything and everything at the drop of a hat, yet very little activity today as we biked around with the family (counted one lone protestor). Maybe it will come later, or maybe it's a sign of outrage fatigue?

This.

Many people saw this as a calculated smear campaign by Democrats and it simply made Republicans all that more defensive about the whole thing, thus ensuring that his nomination would be pushed through. Had these allegations come out during the normal process (and assuming they were true) there would likely have been a quiet decision to withdraw Kavanaugh from consideration and pick someone else.


The deeper problem is the politicization of the judicial branch reflects directly on the executive branch amassing power over the last century or so while the legislative branch has continually abdicated it's power. Supreme Court nominee one wouldn't matter so much if Congress did it's job and didn't punt the hard decisions to the Supreme Court in an effort to keep their hands cleaner so they can focus on getting reelected for life.

The bolded makes me wonder if the Republicans were the ones that leaked the letter to the press.  Christine Ford has stated that her email was hacked and the result was such that Republicans were able to successfully get Kavanaugh through, energize the Republican base and smear Democrats & women.  It also took the focus off the stolen emails from Senator Leahy and Kavanaugh's shady financials. 

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1397 on: October 07, 2018, 09:05:42 AM »
1/3 of the men on the Supreme Court now stand credibly accused of sexual misconduct.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1398 on: October 07, 2018, 09:10:44 AM »
The bolded makes me wonder if the Republicans were the ones that leaked the letter to the press.  Christine Ford has stated that her email was hacked and the result was such that Republicans were able to successfully get Kavanaugh through, energize the Republican base and smear Democrats & women.  It also took the focus off the stolen emails from Senator Leahy and Kavanaugh's shady financials.

It was a bad decision, if so. The polling looks poor for the Republicans -- Kavanaugh had low approval, especially among suburban women. They're a big part of Republican support. It'll be interesting to see what the polls show this week.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1399 on: October 07, 2018, 09:16:10 AM »
Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

Read the bolded above.


Quote
I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

What are you going on about?