Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: Judge Dread

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Plus -- Biden better kiss his Dem nom for POTUS goodbye, ya know?  As was howled by the rethugs Thursday, what goes round comes round, and it's come round for Joe:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-wrote-the-gops-playbook-for-brett-kavanaugh?ref=home

 

I saw that too.  Plus he's got so many things out there about how "handsy" he's been and whatnot.  He missed his moment.  2016 might have been it, but he's clearly not the right choice now for reasons like these plus age. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, and I think Biden knows this himself. At least I think or rather hope he has better political instincts than HRC and does not try to force a run.

I'd still pick him over likesay Booker, but that's probably more down to Booker than to Uncle Joe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2018 at 3:16 PM, Vin said:

snip

So long you ugly bastards. 

I'm sure in the hell one ugly bastard and damn proud of it. That's about the only accurate thing you've said here.
The rest of this conservative hissy fit is nonsense.
As a bonus it threw conservative criminal procedure concern trolling. I'm old enough to remember that a big part of the conservative movement was "getting tough on crime".
But when we have a rich white guy getting accused of shit, well golly gee willikers, time to get the old ACLU card out.

On 9/28/2018 at 3:24 PM, Cas Stark said:

This is why there are no non progressives who post here.  

Well this old ugly bastard couldn't give one iota of a hoot about conservative civility concern trolling.


I think its quite interesting that a big reason conservative sorts of people voted for Trump because allegedly he was going to say just what needed to be said, and it was high time that somebody teach those wimpy liberal snowflakes a lesson.
And yet, the moment somebody says, "I think I disagree with Rush Limbaugh", here comes conservative guy saying "can't we keep it civil!". 
I think we are bit past that point.
Paul Ryan can trash talk all he wants and talk about "owing the libs", but he ought not be surprised when some of us push back and just light that conservative ass right on up.
 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

Well, that is something.  It’s pertains to why I think it is silly to disregard presumption of innocence and burden of proof and all that.  It’s all fine and well as long as it’s a political weapon to use against your enemies; if said tactic is used against you, then it starts to seem a bit unfair. 

Even though most conservatives and people on the left don't agree much about the size of government, most of them would probably agree that enforcing criminal laws is a key government responsibility, unless your like Murray Rothbard or something.
Though it's a responsibility that government undertakes, the government's or the state's power  to enforce criminal laws is quite terrifying and something that could be subject to abuse. Accordingly, it's important that there are key procedural checks on the state. One of them being that the state prove that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.
Typically when the state goes after an individual that individuals resources are limited while the state commands almost unlimited resources. So in order to even the fight, it's appropriate I imagine to make the state show a high degree of proof.
Accordingly, I very much support the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal proceedings.
However, requiring the reasonable doubt standard in other context is not practicable or workable. If I as a voter am considering an allegation made against a candidate for political office and am using that consideration in assessing whether or not to vote for that candidate, I think's quite fine for me to use a lower standard of proof than the reasonable doubt standard. After all the same considerations in requiring the state to use a reasonable doubt standard are not play in such a situation. I can't send the candidate to jail. And I'm just one guy who doesn't have the resources the state commands. And of course the other procedural/evidentiary rules that are in place during a trial, aren't workable or practicable in that context either. When I'm reading about the misdeeds of some candidate and I read what the reporter wrote about what somebody said, I don't say "Oh, my god I can't consider that statement cause it would violate the hearsay rule!", though I'd imagine if I was creative enough I probably could think of a justification under one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Of course many posters here have already explained the inappropriateness of using all the procedures found in a criminal court, including the state's burden of persuasion, in assessing a candidate's fitness for office. I'm just expanding a little here.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

As you would expect, this late FBI investigation doesn’t exactly look kosher as the White House is defining its scope

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/kavanaugh-allegations-fbi-probe-defined-by-white-house-ron-hosko-former-fbi-assistant-director/?__twitter_impression=true

This was assumed to be a farce from the gitgo coz otherwise the nazis wouldn't have allowed it, anymore than Judge could be interviewed, etc.

Continuing, also as usual, to be outraged by the Dem Men and their stupid questioning in the time they had, and keeping the wimmen among them from asking BK any question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

This was assumed to be a farce from the gitgo coz otherwise the nazis wouldn't have allowed it, anymore than Judge could be interviewed, etc.

Continuing, also as usual, to be outraged by the Dem Men and their stupid questioning in the time they had, and keeping the wimmen among them from asking BK any question. 

Of course it was always a farce and Flake knew it all along. I can’t believe some of the outlets praising him for his moderation and bipartisanship. We know the White House does not act in good faith, they retained all of those records. And Trump is not a guy who relents, he would not go from “No investigation” to a fair and balanced one. This will serve to give cover not just to Flake, but also Murkowski and Collins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Of course it was always a farce and Flake knew it all along. I can’t believe some of the outlets praising him for his moderation and bipartisanship. We know the White House does not act in good faith, they retained all of those records. And Trump is not a guy who relents, he would not go from “No investigation” to a fair and balanced one. This will serve to give cover not just to Flake, but also Murkowski and Collins.

:agree: :commie:  Time for :cheers: (just in keeping with the theme of the farce they called a hearing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Oh look, the FBI investigation is a joke 

A spit in the face and a kick in the balls.  Can't even talk to Judge's supermarket and look at records.  Can't even talk to Swentick.  Do they think we'll buy this bs?  Well, actually they don't give a damn.  History says "A further investigation of the FBI showed no corroborating testimony or evidence. End Bury in files forever (or burn)."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zorral said:

A spit in the face and a kick in the balls.  Can't even talk to Judge's supermarket and look at records.  Can't even talk to Swentick.  Do they think we'll buy this bs?  Well, actually they don't give a damn.  History says "A further investigation of the FBI showed no corroborating testimony or evidence. End Bury in files forever (or burn)."

 

Oh and look, this woman was the piece of shit I knew she was while the moderates in here had praised her. 
 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats planning to examine Trump’s tax returns after the midterms
A nearly 100-year old statute allows the chairmen of Congress’ tax committees to look at anyone’s returns.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/29/trumps-tax-returns-midterms-democrats-853456

Quote

 

The years-old mystery of what’s in President Donald Trump’s tax returns will likely quickly unravel if Democrats win control of at least one chamber of Congress.

Democrats, especially in the House, are quietly planning on using an obscure law that will enable them to examine the president’s tax filings without his permission.


The nearly 100-year-old statute allows the chairmen of Congress’ tax committees to look at anyone’s returns, and Democrats say they intend to use that power to help answer a long list of questions about Trump’s finances. Many also want to use it to make public confidential information about Trump’s taxes that he’s steadfastly refused to release.

“Probably the approach would be to get all of it, review it and, depending on what that shows, release all or part of it,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the No. 4 Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee.

That could bring a swift end to the long-running battle over Trump’s returns, while generating loads of fodder for what promises to be an array of investigations into the administration if Democrats win power.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Democrats planning to examine Trump’s tax returns after the midterms
A nearly 100-year old statute allows the chairmen of Congress’ tax committees to look at anyone’s returns.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/29/trumps-tax-returns-midterms-democrats-853456

 

Don'T worry/get your hopes up. Remember, the fiscally conservative Republicans always went on about closing loopholes in the tax code. Guess where they'll be starting before the midterms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Democrats planning to examine Trump’s tax returns after the midterms
A nearly 100-year old statute allows the chairmen of Congress’ tax committees to look at anyone’s returns.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/29/trumps-tax-returns-midterms-democrats-853456

 

They will enact some last minute changes to protect him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think I fully understand some of the stated logic in rushing through the nomination.  I get that the GOP is afraid of losing the Senate, and as such have incentive to place someone before that happens.   But why can’t they withdraw this chode and nominate someone else, even if that person would end up being seated during a lame duck period?   Does it become more difficult merely in terms of public perception (because if so, I can’t imagine the GOP giving much of a shit), or are there actual structural barriers that make it uncertain if someone would be placed?

I’m also not following the logic behind the GOP fear that not placing someone before midterms will diminish their chance to keep the Senate.   Why wouldn’t GOP voters be more incentivized to try to keep the Senate if that seat is still open?   It just seems kind of counter intuitive to me— why would reps be super incentivized to vote after getting what they wanted, rather than in order to get what they wanted?

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I don’t think I fully understand some of the stated logic in rushing through the nomination.  I get that the GOP is afraid of losing the Senate, and as such have incentive to place someone before that happens.   But why can’t they withdraw this chode and nominate someone else, even if that person would end up being seated during a lame duck period?   Does it become more difficult merely in terms of public perception (because if so, I can’t imagine the GOP giving much of a shit), or are there actual structural barriers that make it uncertain if someone would be placed?

I’m also not following the logic behind the GOP fear that not placing someone before midterms will diminish their chance to keep the Senate.   Why wouldn’t GOP voters be more incentivized to try to keep the Senate if that seat is still open?   It just seems kind of counter intuitive to me— why would reps be super incentivized to vote after getting what they wanted, rather than in order to get what they wanted?

There are no structural barriers. Only time barriers and they have plenty of time. (it's about 50 days) There is the outside chance that they would nominate someone else who would turn out to be somehow unfit, but the chance seems exceedingly small.

The reason they might feel that Republican voters won't respond well if the seat is left open is that Republican voters are constantly paranoid about being betrayed by their politicians. And it's compounded by many betrayals as they see it regarding the SC. There is a very real chance that the seat being left open would drive down Republican base turnout in the midterms out of sheer anger, either at incompetence, or a sense of betrayal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×