Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72409 times)

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1400 on: October 07, 2018, 02:22:26 PM »
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?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1401 on: October 07, 2018, 02:26:24 PM »
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?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1402 on: October 07, 2018, 02:52:33 PM »
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?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

It is possible to amend the Constitution. The changes have to be made with regard to how it functions in the greater whole.

Right now they want the Senate to be by population. The house is also by population. We go from "tyranny of the minority" to "mob rule." That is not a solution.

If they changed the number of senators to 4 (or however many) for each state, that would be fine.

Or if they are that salty about the confirmation just amend the Constitution to 60% of both the Senate and the house of Representatives. Population gets added and each state still has baseline representation.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1403 on: October 07, 2018, 02:54:54 PM »
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?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

If the composition of the Senate is going to be the same as the House, why have it.  Just go to a unicameral legislature (i.e., House only).  The Senate was purposely set up to be less representative.  Originally, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures and not by popular vote.  That was changed by amendment in the early 20th century.  The Senate was supposed to be more deliberative and less responsive to the whim of the people.  Hence 6 year terms rather than 2.  Not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than the somehow ensure that the Dems never lose.  Is it fair that populous Republican Texas has only two senators and underpopulated liberal Vermont also has 2?  How many people elected Bernie Sanders?

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1404 on: October 07, 2018, 02:57:40 PM »
Quote from: craimund link=topic=96396.msg2161375#msg2161375
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than the somehow ensure that the Dems never lose.
If Dems always have the majority of voters in the country then they should never lose.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1405 on: October 07, 2018, 03:00:18 PM »
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?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

Until the last three election cycles, the Democrats were the overwhelming beneficiaries of gerrymandering, winning a disproportionate number of Congressional seats compared to the actual vote received.  The attached chart is from a CNBC article.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Dems complain.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1406 on: October 07, 2018, 03:03:54 PM »
Quote from: craimund link=topic=96396.msg2161375#msg2161375
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than the somehow ensure that the Dems never lose.
If Dems always have the majority of voters in the country then they should never lose.

Senate and House races aren't determined by the national popular vote.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1407 on: October 07, 2018, 03:15:08 PM »
Quote from: craimund link=topic=96396.msg2161375#msg2161375
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than the somehow ensure that the Dems never lose.
If Dems always have the majority of voters in the country then they should never lose.

The majority of the electorate in the 2010 and 2014 Senate races was Republican.  In 2012 and 2016 the majority was Democrat.  Democrats don't always get the most votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3059
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1408 on: October 07, 2018, 03:19:51 PM »
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.

The Russians have interfered before and they will again. Why wouldn't they? They want no sanctions. The billionaires controlling Putin have spoken, and he'd better deliver or be removed.

Russians have hacked emails. The hacked emails could lead to the blackmail of politicians. Trump has said he has dirt on certain people in Congress. I believe him.

If a poll is correct, I'll be pleasantly surprised. With the avoidance of recording people of color on the census and the resulting gerrymandering, the Repubs have managed to take control even though they are the minority.






Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1409 on: October 08, 2018, 04:50:43 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?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

The discussion around only two senators per state was a heated one.  From what I understand they were locked in a room until it and other items were agreed upon.  The reasoning is that small states would have no voice in Washington DC.  This is the purpose of two senators per state.  To give the smaller states a voice.  Changing it would change what the forefathers envisioned and I think the small states need a voice.


I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1410 on: October 08, 2018, 07:25:20 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?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

The discussion around only two senators per state was a heated one.  From what I understand they were locked in a room until it and other items were agreed upon.  The reasoning is that small states would have no voice in Washington DC.  This is the purpose of two senators per state.  To give the smaller states a voice.  Changing it would change what the forefathers envisioned and I think the small states need a voice.

It would also take a constitutional change, which the small states would never agree to. The large states don't have the votes to change it on their own. 

Senators per state isn't changing anytime soon.

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1411 on: October 08, 2018, 07:42:35 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?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

The discussion around only two senators per state was a heated one.  From what I understand they were locked in a room until it and other items were agreed upon.  The reasoning is that small states would have no voice in Washington DC.  This is the purpose of two senators per state.  To give the smaller states a voice.  Changing it would change what the forefathers envisioned and I think the small states need a voice.

I agree and I think it is a dangerous concept for the media or politicians to express.  It will only further divide the country.  To me, the more important concept is voting in legislators that are delegates rather than trustees regardless of party.  In a meeting with my Republican congressman in 2017 who was voted in by only a 12% margin over the unknown, severely underfunded Democratic candidate, he expressed he was a trustee type of legislator rather than a delegate type of legislator.  He specifically said that the voters had their say and they voted for him based on his political philosophy and that he saw no reason to have Town Halls.  It's a heavily gerrymandered district in NC and he won with votes representing 29% of 2010 population and I live in an area that has seen 3% population growth year after year since 2010.  When I asked him what about the other 70% in his district he ignored me and went on to another question.  I can express my opinion all I want, but he all but admitted he doesn't care what his constituents think.  I'm helping his opponent all I can this cycle, but gerrymandering is a problem.   

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 717
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1412 on: October 08, 2018, 07:57:02 AM »
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1413 on: October 08, 2018, 08:13:01 AM »
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Yes, it could be, and there are studies showing it is infinitely doable and the most non-partisan solution. But it will never happen for that very reason, because politicians suck.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1414 on: October 08, 2018, 08:42:52 AM »
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

We also need to decide if 438 people are enough to represent a country of 328 million people. The original Constitution says that every 30,000 people creates a new representative, which creates a new district.

There is supposed to be 10,866 Representatives I the House. I have been told "That is TOO much democracy and they prefer the strong centralized government." Seems the beast has slipped the leash and the consensus is "we need to build a better leash" instead of contemplating what the proper size should be.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1415 on: October 08, 2018, 09:46:32 AM »
I've been thinking about how pressure to vote was distributed in the Kavanaugh process. There was a lot of pressure placed on Murkowski and Collins, as female senators and thus considered potential GOP swings. I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone. Mancin and all the other men who voted are just as much to blame. Putting the weight of this on two female senators is also sexist. The political strategy of putting pressure on them and seeing them as the swing votes is simply an extension of that abdication of responsibility.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1416 on: October 08, 2018, 09:48:38 AM »
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

We also need to decide if 438 people are enough to represent a country of 328 million people. The original Constitution says that every 30,000 people creates a new representative, which creates a new district.

There is supposed to be 10,866 Representatives I the House. I have been told "That is TOO much democracy and they prefer the strong centralized government." Seems the beast has slipped the leash and the consensus is "we need to build a better leash" instead of contemplating what the proper size should be.

Coming from the other side of things, I would be very much in agreement with this solution.  And it is completely possible now with technology.

But it will never happen because the politicians on both sides like their lifetime power appointments.

Think about it, if you combine this with term limits, all of the sudden you can't buy enough congressmen to get what you want, because there are enough of them that many will say no.  Especially once you remove the lure of decades in office.  Just like term limits, this would take an Article V convention and isn't likely to happen any time soon.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1417 on: October 08, 2018, 10:01:15 AM »
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!
Sure does seem a reasonable idea.

In the realm of Unintended Consequences, one obstacle is the Voting Rights Act and Majority-minority districts.  If that camel's nose is permitted to stand and disrupt an "equal population with minimum perimeter" or similar district drawing, then we probably end up with the gerrymandered districts we have today.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1418 on: October 08, 2018, 10:06:37 AM »
I've been thinking about how pressure to vote was distributed in the Kavanaugh process. There was a lot of pressure placed on Murkowski and Collins, as female senators and thus considered potential GOP swings. I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone. Mancin and all the other men who voted are just as much to blame. Putting the weight of this on two female senators is also sexist. The political strategy of putting pressure on them and seeing them as the swing votes is simply an extension of that abdication of responsibility.

I agree. 

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1419 on: October 08, 2018, 10:12:51 AM »
I agree that the "blame" goes to every senator who voted, but I think the weight was on Murkowski and Collins, not because they were female, but because they have crossed the aisle before and are seen as moderates.  No one expected Joni Ernst to vote anything but straight party line, for instance, and she's a female GOP senator. (there are 3 other republican females in the senate too- I don't know anything about them though.)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1420 on: October 08, 2018, 10:29:28 AM »
I agree that the "blame" goes to every senator who voted, but I think the weight was on Murkowski and Collins, not because they were female, but because they have crossed the aisle before and are seen as moderates.  No one expected Joni Ernst to vote anything but straight party line, for instance, and she's a female GOP senator. (there are 3 other republican females in the senate too- I don't know anything about them though.)

Valid points. Collins vote has actually helped fuel a huge outpouring of support and funds to basically whoever runs against her. To the point that the website accepting donations crashed.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1421 on: October 08, 2018, 10:56:09 AM »
I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone.

Collins didn't bear the responsibility of voting a certain way because she is a woman, she bore the responsibility of voting a certain way because she has positioned herself as a champion of women's issue.  When she then publicly denounced the #metoo movement and called a sexual assault survivor a liar, she absolutely earned all of the derision she has received.  That load is hers to carry because she is a deceitful hypocrite, not because she is a woman. 

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1422 on: October 08, 2018, 10:59:20 AM »
Collins didn't bear the responsibility of voting a certain way because she is a woman, she bore the responsibility of voting a certain way because she has positioned herself as a champion of women's issue.  When she then publicly denounced the #metoo movement and called a sexual assault survivor a liar, she absolutely earned all of the derision she has received.  That load is hers to carry because she is a deceitful hypocrite, not because she is a woman.
I'll buy that.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1423 on: October 08, 2018, 11:05:28 AM »
I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone.

Collins didn't bear the responsibility of voting a certain way because she is a woman, she bore the responsibility of voting a certain way because she has positioned herself as a champion of women's issue.  When she then publicly denounced the #metoo movement and called a sexual assault survivor a liar, she absolutely earned all of the derision she has received.  That load is hers to carry because she is a deceitful hypocrite, not because she is a woman.

But some people who claim to be "sexual assault survivors" are liars.  UVA Jackie, Crystal Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) and Tawana Brawley are some of the high profile false allegations that were accepted as true and found later to be totally fabricated.  The lives of the falsely accused were ruined as a result.  The truth is that some men sexually assault women and some women lie about being sexually assaulted.  Some people (men and women) are mentally unstable and believe something happened to them in the past that never happened or an accuser may blame the wrong person for a crime.  That's why there should be a presumption of innocence for these types of accusations.  Collins articulated this in her speech on the floor of the Senate, applying a preponderance of evidence standard.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1424 on: October 08, 2018, 11:10:54 AM »
I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone.

Collins didn't bear the responsibility of voting a certain way because she is a woman, she bore the responsibility of voting a certain way because she has positioned herself as a champion of women's issue.  When she then publicly denounced the #metoo movement and called a sexual assault survivor a liar, she absolutely earned all of the derision she has received.  That load is hers to carry because she is a deceitful hypocrite, not because she is a woman.

But some people who claim to be "sexual assault survivors" are liars.  UVA Jackie, Crystal Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) and Tawana Brawley are some of the high profile false allegations that were accepted as true and found later to be totally fabricated.  The lives of the falsely accused were ruined as a result.  The truth is that some men sexually assault women and some women lie about being sexually assaulted.  Some people (men and women) are mentally unstable and believe something happened to them in the past that never happened or an accuser may blame the wrong person for a crime.  That's why there should be a presumption of innocence for these types of accusations.  Collins articulated this in her speech on the floor of the Senate, applying a preponderance of evidence standard.

In this particular case, I find it very implausible that Ford would be lying about this and would repeat the same lie to four other witnesses over a period of multiple years before Kavanaugh was ever under consideration for a Supreme Court appointment. I find it much more likely that she's telling the truth.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1425 on: October 08, 2018, 11:18:23 AM »
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

We also need to decide if 438 people are enough to represent a country of 328 million people. The original Constitution says that every 30,000 people creates a new representative, which creates a new district.

There is supposed to be 10,866 Representatives I the House. I have been told "That is TOO much democracy and they prefer the strong centralized government." Seems the beast has slipped the leash and the consensus is "we need to build a better leash" instead of contemplating what the proper size should be.

Coming from the other side of things, I would be very much in agreement with this solution.  And it is completely possible now with technology.

But it will never happen because the politicians on both sides like their lifetime power appointments.

Think about it, if you combine this with term limits, all of the sudden you can't buy enough congressmen to get what you want, because there are enough of them that many will say no.  Especially once you remove the lure of decades in office.  Just like term limits, this would take an Article V convention and isn't likely to happen any time soon.

I'd wait on adding term limits. The limits would be up just when people would be getting the hang of things. And such a large change we would have to see how the system changes.

I think there would be too many Congress people to buy (though it would make senators more valuable, but they are still only half the equation.) Counties like mine have 60,000 people, 1 county newspaper and 3 local radio stations so there would be market limits on ads. (You could buy ad space in Chicago papers but there would be several dozen districts also competing.)

Also more diversity and opportunity in Congress.

We have to get people talking. Right now people are trying to reinvent the wheel to bring balance to our system. That needs to stop.

Edit: Actually Congress would have to repeal the Permanent Allocation act of 1929. That seems easier than a convention. Yes, our government size hasn't been adjusted in 90 years.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 11:24:50 AM by gentmach »

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1426 on: October 08, 2018, 11:26:03 AM »
I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone.

Collins didn't bear the responsibility of voting a certain way because she is a woman, she bore the responsibility of voting a certain way because she has positioned herself as a champion of women's issue.  When she then publicly denounced the #metoo movement and called a sexual assault survivor a liar, she absolutely earned all of the derision she has received.  That load is hers to carry because she is a deceitful hypocrite, not because she is a woman.

But some people who claim to be "sexual assault survivors" are liars.  UVA Jackie, Crystal Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) and Tawana Brawley are some of the high profile false allegations that were accepted as true and found later to be totally fabricated.  The lives of the falsely accused were ruined as a result.  The truth is that some men sexually assault women and some women lie about being sexually assaulted.  Some people (men and women) are mentally unstable and believe something happened to them in the past that never happened or an accuser may blame the wrong person for a crime.  That's why there should be a presumption of innocence for these types of accusations.  Collins articulated this in her speech on the floor of the Senate, applying a preponderance of evidence standard.

For a job interview?  Have you ever interviewed anyone?  We've rejected people for the wrong clothes, the wrong shoes, typo on resume, asking personal questions, misspelling names in form letters.  And that's the tip of the iceberg.  If we had ever interviewed someone and addressed a glaring problem in their resume, and they came back yelling and sputtering at us, they'd be shown the door.  His behavior at being questioned was outrageous.  His answers about his disgusting comments about Renate Schroeder were clearly lies. And it's still not clear to me why he had to take out a second mortgage to buy baseball tickets.

Now, maybe I'd be a little more sympathetic to him being the target of accusations against which he had no choice but to angrily defend himself if he hadn't made his career spending millions of dollars trying to prove that Hillary Clinton had an affair with Vince Foster.  Based on (wait for it) nothing.  The evidence against Brett-witness testimony-was a lot more than he had on Hillary.  Brett got years to go after her.  Why did Brett feel entitled to a hair from Foster's daughter but the FBI can't even interview Mark Judge? 

At this point, I'm waiting for him to overturn Roe. Maybe people will start caring then.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1427 on: October 08, 2018, 11:33:08 AM »
I've been following this thread closely but haven't posted. 

FWIW, I've voted Democrat in 2 of 3 presidential cycles (including the most recent), have voted Democrat in my local congressional race for six election cycles in a row, and generally consider myself very socially liberal.

All that said, the way Democrats handled this Kavenaugh allegation was the most disgusting political stuff I've ever seen in my lifetime. We went so low that we forget Booker and Harris embarrassing the Senate with their initial questioning.  Then D's completely botched Ford's confidentiality, and in every step of the process regarding the allegation, their goal was delay and embarrassing the nominee into withdrawing, not fairness. 

As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.

And don't give me "this was a job interview" bullshit.  That was an obvious ploy to shift blame from their own shady behavior.  No job interviewer in their right mind goes into whether "Devil's Triangle" means a threesome or a drinking game.  And the intent of this was obvious -- they couldn't prove "A" (sexual assault), so they tried to prove "B" (drinking), and if they proved B, then they could prove A.  It's a lazy lawyer tactic that would be an embarrassment in a personal injury trial, let alone in a Senate Judiciary hearing.

The entire thing was a sham and an embarrassment to the country.  I initially didn't like the Kavenaugh nomination because I would have preferred someone more moderate.  When the allegations first came out, I thought they should withdraw him.  But as it got worse and worse, I thought fuck it, for the first time ever, I was happy that Trump was president, that he was willing to say "fuck you" and stick up for the presumption of innocence and due process. Those are hills worth dying on.

And worst of all, as is being clearly demonstrated by the recent discussion in this thread regarding the Senate, the Democrats conduct has been so outrageous that questioning the legitimacy of our institutions is somehow considered mainstream among the intellectual left.

I've read countless articles questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  I've seen thought pieces about how undemocratic the Senate is.  I've read about how anything Trump has done is illegitimate.  And throughout this entire ordeal, I've seen Democrats stomp on the presumption of innocence and due process.  Wait a minute -- weren't we pissed at Trump for stomping on democratic norms?  And now Democrats are going to act like this?

Do we seriously have to go over the purpose of the Senate? Are us Democrats too stupid and naive to forget hat small liberal states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Oregon, etc. all get two votes as well? Do we really want federal legislation being passed based almost entirely on interests of California, Texas, New York, and Florida?

Sorry, but I'm done with Democrats for a long, long time.  This was disgusting and embarrassing.

I'm voting Republican this November.  My mom, who has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1976, is doing the same.  I will probably never vote for Trump, but if Democrats pull something like this again, I just might.

I am just so utterly disgusted.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 11:36:37 AM by ReadySetMillionaire »

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1428 on: October 08, 2018, 11:36:10 AM »
As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1429 on: October 08, 2018, 11:38:14 AM »
Hey I have an idea. How about instead of rejiggering the makeup of the Senate we just require 60 votes to confirm judges? That would help balance things and would likely preclude the most extreme partisans from being nominated, let alone confirmed.

Oh. Right.


Mitch McConnell is a political hatchet man but you can't say he didn't warn us: “I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this. And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.” (2013, when Democrats exercised the 'nuclear option' to change the threshold from 60 votes to a simple majority for Federal judges [later expanded, of course, to the Supreme Court too]).


ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1430 on: October 08, 2018, 11:40:17 AM »
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

You're off your goddamn partisan rocker if you legitimately think this.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1431 on: October 08, 2018, 11:43:56 AM »
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

You're off your goddamn partisan rocker if you legitimately think this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3bcd78ae8d1a
"Other witnesses"

You're off your rocker if you think Ford has been planning a long con since 2012 on the off-chance that Donald Trump would win the presidency in 2016 and nominate Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1432 on: October 08, 2018, 11:46:51 AM »
I've been following this thread closely but haven't posted. 

FWIW, I've voted Democrat in 2 of 3 presidential cycles (including the most recent), have voted Democrat in my local congressional race for six election cycles in a row, and generally consider myself very socially liberal.

All that said, the way Democrats handled this Kavenaugh allegation was the most disgusting political stuff I've ever seen in my lifetime. We went so low that we forget Booker and Harris embarrassing the Senate with their initial questioning.  Then D's completely botched Ford's confidentiality, and in every step of the process regarding the allegation, their goal was delay and embarrassing the nominee into withdrawing, not fairness. 

As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.

And don't give me "this was a job interview" bullshit.  That was an obvious ploy to shift blame from their own shady behavior.  No job interviewer in their right mind goes into whether "Devil's Triangle" means a threesome or a drinking game.  And the intent of this was obvious -- they couldn't prove "A" (sexual assault), so they tried to prove "B" (drinking), and if they proved B, then they could prove A.  It's a lazy lawyer tactic that would be an embarrassment in a personal injury trial, let alone in a Senate Judiciary hearing.

The entire thing was a sham and an embarrassment to the country.  I initially didn't like the Kavenaugh nomination because I would have preferred someone more moderate.  When the allegations first came out, I thought they should withdraw him.  But as it got worse and worse, I thought fuck it, for the first time ever, I was happy that Trump was president, that he was willing to say "fuck you" and stick up for the presumption of innocence and due process. Those are hills worth dying on.

And worst of all, as is being clearly demonstrated by the recent discussion in this thread regarding the Senate, the Democrats conduct has been so outrageous that questioning the legitimacy of our institutions is somehow considered mainstream among the intellectual left.

I've read countless articles questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  I've seen thought pieces about how undemocratic the Senate is.  I've read about how anything Trump has done is illegitimate.  And throughout this entire ordeal, I've seen Democrats stomp on the presumption of innocence and due process.  Wait a minute -- weren't we pissed at Trump for stomping on democratic norms?  And now Democrats are going to act like this?

Do we seriously have to go over the purpose of the Senate? Are us Democrats too stupid and naive to forget hat small liberal states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Oregon, etc. all get two votes as well? Do we really want federal legislation being passed based almost entirely on interests of California, Texas, New York, and Florida?

Sorry, but I'm done with Democrats for a long, long time.  This was disgusting and embarrassing.

I'm voting Republican this November.  My mom, who has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1976, is doing the same.  I will probably never vote for Trump, but if Democrats pull something like this again, I just might.

I am just so utterly disgusted.

Your anger seems very heartfelt and you should contact some conservative publications.  Much like liberals adore Cletus safaris into the heartland, conservative rags love stories about "liberals" who are walking away.  They would be all over your story.

Did you react the same way when Newt Gingrich uncovered a stained dress during an investigation of Arkansas real estate transactions?  Did you react the same way when Mitch McConnell wouldn't advance Garland for a vote? I'm just asking about when and where disgust is appropriate.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1433 on: October 08, 2018, 11:55:59 AM »
Hey I have an idea. How about instead of rejiggering the makeup of the Senate we just require 60 votes to confirm judges? That would help balance things and would likely preclude the most extreme partisans from being nominated, let alone confirmed.

Oh. Right.


Mitch McConnell is a political hatchet man but you can't say he didn't warn us: “I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this. And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.” (2013, when Democrats exercised the 'nuclear option' to change the threshold from 60 votes to a simple majority for Federal judges [later expanded, of course, to the Supreme Court too]).

That's not what the "nuclear option" is about and "60 votes" was never a standard for confirmation of SC Judges. (Hint: How many votes did Thomas get in 1991? How about Alito in 2006?) It's about the votes needed to end filibusters.

The "nuclear option" wasn't exercised in 2013. Its use was threatened, much like Majority Leader Frist (R) threatened its use in 2005, and Obama and the GOP worked out a deal.

There was no filibuster of Kavanaugh so the "nuclear option" wasn't exercised this time either.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1434 on: October 08, 2018, 11:57:18 AM »

The entire thing was a sham and an embarrassment to the country.  I initially didn't like the Kavenaugh nomination because I would have preferred someone more moderate.  When the allegations first came out, I thought they should withdraw him.  But as it got worse and worse, I thought fuck it, for the first time ever, I was happy that Trump was president, that he was willing to say "fuck you" and stick up for the presumption of innocence and due process. Those are hills worth dying on.


I am just so utterly disgusted.

Before you grab your chisel to start marking his face into Mt. Rushmore as a friend to the unjustly accused who is willing to die on the hill of presumption of innocence, you may recall that this is how he reacted to the unjustly accused:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-trump-death-penalty-central-park-five-20180713-story.html

Trump doesn't give a shit about the unjustly accused.  He cares about Trump winning and Trump looking good. In this case, Kavanaugh's success was tied to his own, so he stood up for him.  How do you think Trump will react to a liberal or minority who is unjustly accused?  If this is what makes you vote for the party that wants to see more of your clients in jail, then by all means go for it.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1435 on: October 08, 2018, 12:05:17 PM »
And it's still not clear to me why he had to take out a second mortgage to buy baseball tickets.

That was an example hack, speculative reporting.  He was also doing some home remodeling at the same time.  Taking out a loan for home improvements is very normal, but mentioning baseball tickets is sensational, so that's the story they went with.  It could have been for cash flow purposes to borrow some money for the home improvements.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1436 on: October 08, 2018, 12:08:34 PM »
Your anger seems very heartfelt and you should contact some conservative publications.  Much like liberals adore Cletus safaris into the heartland, conservative rags love stories about "liberals" who are walking away.  They would be all over your story.

FOXNEWS NEWSFLASH: Anonymous posters on financial forum convince diehard liberal to become Trump-loving conservative! Voter goes from supporting feminists to supporting Roy Moore in one week.

Full story at 7.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1437 on: October 08, 2018, 12:09:27 PM »
And it's still not clear to me why he had to take out a second mortgage to buy baseball tickets.

That was an example hack, speculative reporting.  He was also doing some home remodeling at the same time.  Taking out a loan for home improvements is very normal, but mentioning baseball tickets is sensational, so that's the story they went with.  It could have been for cash flow purposes to borrow some money for the home improvements.

Could have been.  If only there were some sort of process by which we could have gotten more information about the cash flow.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1438 on: October 08, 2018, 12:10:29 PM »
That's not what the "nuclear option" is about and "60 votes" was never a standard for confirmation of SC Judges. (Hint: How many votes did Thomas get in 1991? How about Alito in 2006?) It's about the votes needed to end filibusters.

The "nuclear option" wasn't exercised in 2013. Its use was threatened, much like Majority Leader Frist (R) threatened its use in 2005, and Obama and the GOP worked out a deal.

There was no filibuster of Kavanaugh so the "nuclear option" wasn't exercised this time either.
It appears you are unfamiliar with the concept of "cloture".  See Kavanaugh court nomination: What is cloture? Did senators filibuster? for context.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1439 on: October 08, 2018, 12:11:20 PM »

The entire thing was a sham and an embarrassment to the country.  I initially didn't like the Kavenaugh nomination because I would have preferred someone more moderate.  When the allegations first came out, I thought they should withdraw him.  But as it got worse and worse, I thought fuck it, for the first time ever, I was happy that Trump was president, that he was willing to say "fuck you" and stick up for the presumption of innocence and due process. Those are hills worth dying on.


I am just so utterly disgusted.

Before you grab your chisel to start marking his face into Mt. Rushmore as a friend to the unjustly accused who is willing to die on the hill of presumption of innocence, you may recall that this is how he reacted to the unjustly accused:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-trump-death-penalty-central-park-five-20180713-story.html

Trump doesn't give a shit about the unjustly accused.  He cares about Trump winning and Trump looking good. In this case, Kavanaugh's success was tied to his own, so he stood up for him.  How do you think Trump will react to a liberal or minority who is unjustly accused?  If this is what makes you vote for the party that wants to see more of your clients in jail, then by all means go for it.

Hah, this was my first thought too. Trump backs whoever is on his side, if the tables were turned he'd be champion of the me too movement right now.

And if you really like that he's criticizing the democrats for this, that's one thing, but are you aware that he's also been mocking Ford? What purpose does that serve? Even if you don't think she had adequate evidence to back her story, that doesn't make her a liar. Do you have adequate evidence to mark her as a liar worthy of ridicule?

Regardless of your stance on the Kavanaugh debate, no one should take away from this that Trump is doing something honorable.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1440 on: October 08, 2018, 12:11:58 PM »
Your anger seems very heartfelt and you should contact some conservative publications.  Much like liberals adore Cletus safaris into the heartland, conservative rags love stories about "liberals" who are walking away.  They would be all over your story.

FOXNEWS NEWSFLASH: Anonymous posters on financial forum convince diehard liberal to become Trump-loving conservative! Voter goes from supporting feminists to supporting Roy Moore in one week.

Full story at 7.

Dude.  Where's the proof against Roy?  Some yearbooks and hysterical females?  That does it.  MAGA!

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1441 on: October 08, 2018, 12:23:30 PM »
And it's still not clear to me why he had to take out a second mortgage to buy baseball tickets.

That was an example hack, speculative reporting.  He was also doing some home remodeling at the same time.  Taking out a loan for home improvements is very normal, but mentioning baseball tickets is sensational, so that's the story they went with.  It could have been for cash flow purposes to borrow some money for the home improvements.

Could have been.  If only there were some sort of process by which we could have gotten more information about the cash flow.

Your representatives DID.  In the closed door hearings.  As is normal practice....
Or do you want the last 5 years of credit card statements for the next democrat's nomination plastered across the internet?

Which, by the way, would have been the perfect time for Feinstein to introduce the letter and allogations into the process AND keep Dr. Ford's confidentiality intact.

Jeeze some people have no idea how this process works.  There are the public hearings, there are private hearings, and there are individual hearings between each senator and the nominee (if requested by the senator) which I do not believe can be denied.  It was noted in the public hearings that the credit card statements for Kavanaugh were reviewed in that hearing (when one of the R senators was complaining about the timing of the letter).  You have a representative, realize that means you may not be privy into the intimate details of a nominee's life, but they are.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 12:30:36 PM by TexasRunner »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1442 on: October 08, 2018, 12:30:21 PM »
That's not what the "nuclear option" is about and "60 votes" was never a standard for confirmation of SC Judges. (Hint: How many votes did Thomas get in 1991? How about Alito in 2006?) It's about the votes needed to end filibusters.

The "nuclear option" wasn't exercised in 2013. Its use was threatened, much like Majority Leader Frist (R) threatened its use in 2005, and Obama and the GOP worked out a deal.

There was no filibuster of Kavanaugh so the "nuclear option" wasn't exercised this time either.
It appears you are unfamiliar with the concept of "cloture".  See Kavanaugh court nomination: What is cloture? Did senators filibuster? for context.

I'm incorrect in that the Democrats did, in fact, vote to end the supermajority needed for cloture for nominations except for SC Justices.

The Republicans voted to end the supermajority needed for cloture for SC Justices in 2017.

There was and is no "60 votes" rule for confirmation.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1443 on: October 08, 2018, 01:03:42 PM »
I've been following this thread closely but haven't posted. 

FWIW, I've voted Democrat in 2 of 3 presidential cycles (including the most recent), have voted Democrat in my local congressional race for six election cycles in a row, and generally consider myself very socially liberal.

All that said, the way Democrats handled this Kavenaugh allegation was the most disgusting political stuff I've ever seen in my lifetime. We went so low that we forget Booker and Harris embarrassing the Senate with their initial questioning.  Then D's completely botched Ford's confidentiality, and in every step of the process regarding the allegation, their goal was delay and embarrassing the nominee into withdrawing, not fairness. 

As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.

And don't give me "this was a job interview" bullshit.  That was an obvious ploy to shift blame from their own shady behavior.  No job interviewer in their right mind goes into whether "Devil's Triangle" means a threesome or a drinking game.  And the intent of this was obvious -- they couldn't prove "A" (sexual assault), so they tried to prove "B" (drinking), and if they proved B, then they could prove A.  It's a lazy lawyer tactic that would be an embarrassment in a personal injury trial, let alone in a Senate Judiciary hearing.

The entire thing was a sham and an embarrassment to the country.  I initially didn't like the Kavenaugh nomination because I would have preferred someone more moderate.  When the allegations first came out, I thought they should withdraw him.  But as it got worse and worse, I thought fuck it, for the first time ever, I was happy that Trump was president, that he was willing to say "fuck you" and stick up for the presumption of innocence and due process. Those are hills worth dying on.

And worst of all, as is being clearly demonstrated by the recent discussion in this thread regarding the Senate, the Democrats conduct has been so outrageous that questioning the legitimacy of our institutions is somehow considered mainstream among the intellectual left.

I've read countless articles questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  I've seen thought pieces about how undemocratic the Senate is.  I've read about how anything Trump has done is illegitimate.  And throughout this entire ordeal, I've seen Democrats stomp on the presumption of innocence and due process.  Wait a minute -- weren't we pissed at Trump for stomping on democratic norms?  And now Democrats are going to act like this?

Do we seriously have to go over the purpose of the Senate? Are us Democrats too stupid and naive to forget hat small liberal states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Oregon, etc. all get two votes as well? Do we really want federal legislation being passed based almost entirely on interests of California, Texas, New York, and Florida?

Sorry, but I'm done with Democrats for a long, long time.  This was disgusting and embarrassing.

I'm voting Republican this November.  My mom, who has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1976, is doing the same.  I will probably never vote for Trump, but if Democrats pull something like this again, I just might.

I am just so utterly disgusted.

Are you aware of our civil court system?  Do you have an opinion on why it is okay for the standard of proof to be lower in our civil court system than our criminal court system?  Do you think that because there is no presumption of innocence in the civil court system that defendants aren't afforded due process in that system?  Are you aware that the highest estimate of the false allegation rate is currently ~10%?

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1444 on: October 08, 2018, 01:16:00 PM »
And it's still not clear to me why he had to take out a second mortgage to buy baseball tickets.

That was an example hack, speculative reporting.  He was also doing some home remodeling at the same time.  Taking out a loan for home improvements is very normal, but mentioning baseball tickets is sensational, so that's the story they went with.  It could have been for cash flow purposes to borrow some money for the home improvements.

Could have been.  If only there were some sort of process by which we could have gotten more information about the cash flow.

Your representatives DID.  In the closed door hearings.  As is normal practice....
Or do you want the last 5 years of credit card statements for the next democrat's nomination plastered across the internet?

Which, by the way, would have been the perfect time for Feinstein to introduce the letter and allogations into the process AND keep Dr. Ford's confidentiality intact.

Jeeze some people have no idea how this process works.  There are the public hearings, there are private hearings, and there are individual hearings between each senator and the nominee (if requested by the senator) which I do not believe can be denied.  It was noted in the public hearings that the credit card statements for Kavanaugh were reviewed in that hearing (when one of the R senators was complaining about the timing of the letter).  You have a representative, realize that means you may not be privy into the intimate details of a nominee's life, but they are.

That's the thing.  I don't know.  I know he had 200k in debt. I don't need to see his cc statements, but I am interested in knowing who paid the debt and why.  I didn't see any reporting on that issue being closed.  Also, his cc statements don't tell me why he got a second mortgage.  They aren't the same as testimony from the people he supposedly bought tickets for.  Both of us are speculating as to why he had such poor cash flow that he needed a second mortgage, and neither of us knows why the sort of person who couldn't afford to pay cash for renovations or baseball tickets (who knows? not us) suddenly was flush enough to pay it all off.  Did his parents pay the debt? The presence of debt and obligations is of interest.   Perhaps this issue was closed, but without knowing for sure, you yourself are speculating that the committee received enough information on this.  Again, this is the committee that couldn't even get Mark Judge to come in, so I don't know why you are so confident that his financial record was carefully reviewed. All available information suggests he kind of sucks at money for someone with such a high income.

I certainly don't know how the process works, mainly because Mitch McConnell seems to be making it up as he goes along. 

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1445 on: October 08, 2018, 01:40:21 PM »
Did you react the same way when Newt Gingrich uncovered a stained dress during an investigation of Arkansas real estate transactions?  Did you react the same way when Mitch McConnell wouldn't advance Garland for a vote? I'm just asking about when and where disgust is appropriate.

Not familiar with the Newt thing, but yes, Republicans' stonewalling of the Garland nomination was a bad faith abandonment of their advice and consent role. That seat was stolen.

Before you grab your chisel to start marking his face into Mt. Rushmore as a friend to the unjustly accused who is willing to die on the hill of presumption of innocence, you may recall that this is how he reacted to the unjustly accused:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-trump-death-penalty-central-park-five-20180713-story.html

Trump doesn't give a shit about the unjustly accused.  He cares about Trump winning and Trump looking good. In this case, Kavanaugh's success was tied to his own, so he stood up for him.  How do you think Trump will react to a liberal or minority who is unjustly accused?  If this is what makes you vote for the party that wants to see more of your clients in jail, then by all means go for it.

Trump is an asshole.  I didn't vote for him.  I 99% won't vote for him in 2020.

Are you aware of our civil court system?  Do you have an opinion on why it is okay for the standard of proof to be lower in our civil court system than our criminal court system?  Do you think that because there is no presumption of innocence in the civil court system that defendants aren't afforded due process in that system?  Are you aware that the highest estimate of the false allegation rate is currently ~10%?

I'm an attorney.  I'm very aware of burdens of proof.  This was an incredibly murky situation regarding what burden of proof applied because the tribunal was irregular.

The lowest possible burden of proof here would have been preponderance -- more likely than not.  The plaintiff, or accuser, carries that burden.  Based on my observation and analysis of the evidence, Dr. Ford failed that burden.

And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1446 on: October 08, 2018, 01:49:27 PM »

I'm an attorney.  I'm very aware of burdens of proof.  This was an incredibly murky situation regarding what burden of proof applied because the tribunal was irregular.

The lowest possible burden of proof here would have been preponderance -- more likely than not.  The plaintiff, or accuser, carries that burden.  Based on my observation and analysis of the evidence, Dr. Ford failed that burden.

And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

A crime might have been the accusation, but it wasn't a trial.  Voting no doesn't mean you are convicting him of sexual assualt. It means you aren't giving him the job.

Garland certainly didn't get past his 'job interview' for much lesser "crimes". His "crime" was being nominated by a Democrat.

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3059
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1447 on: October 08, 2018, 01:51:23 PM »

I'm an attorney.  I'm very aware of burdens of proof.  This was an incredibly murky situation regarding what burden of proof applied because the tribunal was irregular.

The lowest possible burden of proof here would have been preponderance -- more likely than not.  The plaintiff, or accuser, carries that burden.  Based on my observation and analysis of the evidence, Dr. Ford failed that burden.

And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

A crime might have been the accusation, but it wasn't a trial.  Voting no doesn't mean you are convicting him of sexual assualt. It means you aren't giving him the job.

Garland certainly didn't get past his 'job interview' for much lesser "crimes". His "crime" was being nominated by a Democrat.

Lawyers keep talking about court proceedings, but this was a job interview and not a trial.


oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3059
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1448 on: October 08, 2018, 01:53:58 PM »
In sum, I consider Kavanaugh's nomination and appointment to the court as a win for the Russians.

As I read more about Russia, I am connecting dots.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1449 on: October 08, 2018, 01:56:32 PM »
A crime might have been the accusation, but it wasn't a trial.  Voting no doesn't mean you are convicting him of sexual assualt. It means you aren't giving him the job.

Garland certainly didn't get past his 'job interview' for much lesser "crimes". His "crime" was being nominated by a Democrat.

To me, voting "no" meant legitimizing the Democrats' conduct, which I found despicable.  It also would have set a dangerous precedent that any allegation -- even one with no corroboration -- could sink a nomination.  That's not a precedent I'm willing to set, even for a nominee that I didn't initially like.