US Politics: Judge Dread

[Kalbear]

31 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

You cannot seriously believe this.

Dennis Hastert was referred to recently as a great person despite currently being behind bars for child molestation. Robert Byrd was forgiven by Democrats for his KKK background. Most Republicans currently dismiss Trump's philandering as him outgrown it now that he's POTUS. And Clarence Thomas got the votes of Democrats in his confirmation, despite being much worse. 

 

10 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

I never said you said Kavanaugh is the only one. It is irrelevant. The midterm elections are close and there's hardly enough time for Trump to pick another nominee and have him confirmed. They could very well lose control of the senate and thus lose their chance of a SC pick. You know this. You also claimed that Kavanaugh could vote on issues in a way that would likely lead to the destruction of the country. Yet you claim Ford has nothing to gain by blocking his confirmation? That is dishonest as hell.

The only reason that this would be an issue is because we are now at the point - thanks to Republicans - that simply confirming a justice is a partisan thing. Remember that as recently as...well, as Gorsuch, that wasn't the case. 

 

16 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I have not implied it was a 'con' but to answer the question, Kennedy was the swing vote, so this seat will swing the court to a solid 5/4 majority, as everyone knows.

 

Surely it would have been far better to delay that as much as possible, no? A 4-4 tie is far better than a 5-4 slight edge to Republicans. 

[Mexal]

12 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

I never said you said Kavanaugh is the only one. It is irrelevant. The midterm elections are close and there's hardly enough time for Trump to pick another nominee and have him confirmed. They could very well lose control of the senate and thus lose their chance of a SC pick. You know this. You also claimed that Kavanaugh could vote on issues in a way that would likely lead to the destruction of the country. Yet you claim Ford has nothing to gain by blocking his confirmation? That is dishonest as hell.

Ford sent her note before Kavanaugh was even the nomination and did it in July when there was plenty of time for Trump to choose someone else. If she was doing this to specifically stop a conservative justice, the fact pattern does not support this and your assertion that she was willing to thrust herself in public, lie to Congress, face death threats, be forced to move out of her home and have her family in protective custody to do so is dishonest as hell. Keep trying.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Jeff Flake is a piece of shit. 
 

 

If true, fuck him.  That's the lowest fucking trashy behavior.  Sorry they pricked your pathetic excuse of a conscience, Flake.

[SweetPea]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well then just fucking nominate a person who hasn't had a bunch of sexual assaults in their past and boom,  some arch conservative in there.

What the fuck are you talking about, it hasn't been estabilished that Kavanaugh commited any sexual assaults in his past. This is exactly what I'm talking about, you have absolutely no problem asserting without evidence that he is guilty, destroying his name and reputation in front of the whole country. It's all good, since this isn't a criminal prosecution right?

(I do agree that Kavanaugh should not have been nominated in the first place though)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

The lack of conservative posters on this forums might also have something to do with the fact that you just dismissed most of them as trolls in this very post. And most people here (thankfully not all) share that sentiment with you. I myself have been called a nazi, bigot, racist, troll, whatever by numerous people here who know next to nothing about my political beliefs.

I called them trolls because we have recent examples from just the past few days. I worked in politics for a long times (relative to my age) and there has been a huge shift over the last decade. When on the campaign trail in 2006 and 2008, you could have honest, civil disagreements with conservative individuals. 2010 was somewhat similar, but I was working in an area that's collective ideology was similar to my own, so I can't speak to those who worked in areas hit by the Tea Party, 2012 and 2014 was just gross. What once was congenial disagreements turned into conservatives just lashing out, regardless of topic at hand. For example, in 2012 while canvassing a neighborhood, I invited a woman in (I'm guessing) early 30's with young kids to a public forum that weekend. Candidates for various offices were going to be there. At first she seemed interested, but after she asked which party I worked for, her faced changed and her response was, "Get off of my property you f-----g baby murderer." In front of her kids. There's been a deep hate brewing in conservative circles, and it's been spill out over the last handful of years (and yes, there is some too on the liberal side, but it's not apples to apples). Now in the post 2016 era, conservatives are channeling that hate by trolling liberals, hence the desire to own the libs by making ridiculously trollish arguments. There's no denying that, and conservatives are relishing in it.

As to the insults, consider the sources. I'm guessing it mostly comes from one poster. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

I never said you said Kavanaugh is the only one. It is irrelevant. The midterm elections are close and there's hardly enough time for Trump to pick another nominee and have him confirmed. They could very well lose control of the senate and thus lose their chance of a SC pick. You know this. You also claimed that Kavanaugh could vote on issues in a way that would likely lead to the destruction of the country. Yet you claim Ford has nothing to gain by blocking his confirmation? That is dishonest as hell.

They have three months. The question is do they want to deal with the ramifications of seating a SCJ in a lame duck session after they lost control of the Senate.

This should all be irrelevant though. They've already stolen a seat, so they can never complain if the Dems do it right back to them. There should be a 5-4 liberal court right now, and frankly trying to make the courts more conservative as the country becomes more liberal is probably not a healthy thing. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

What the fuck are you talking about, it hasn't been estabilished that Kavanaugh commited any sexual assaults in his past. This is exactly what I'm talking about, you have absolutely no problem asserting without evidence that he is guilty, destroying his name and reputation in front of the whole country. It's all good, since this isn't a criminal prosecution right?

(I do agree that Kavanaugh should not have been nominated in the first place though)

You didn't have a bunch of people lined up claiming Gorsuch raped them.  If you want to nominate someone to a lifetime position do your homework and find a squeaky clean candidate.  It's not that tough.  

Of course it hasn't been 'established'.  It's been alleged, by one very credible person and several others who haven't been questioned.  If you want to complain about a nominee being grilled then put someone who can handle the pressure.  We just saw yesterday one person maintain her composure while describing probably one of the worst moments of her life, while we saw another person, of allegedly the highest character, fall apart and deflect and become angry and lash out.  It wasn't the behavior of someone with nothing to hide, but it also wasn't the behavior of someone with the rigor and temperament to be a justice.  And that's without getting into his whole partisan shit.  He failed that test unequivocally yesterday.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He lied yesterday about watching Ford's testimony,

Did he? I haven't seen that reported anywhere. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How do you feel about charging him for perjury?

More power to them.  It was good enough as a cause of action to impeach President Clinton.

[Mexal]

Just now, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Did he? I haven't seen that reported anywhere. 

WSJ reported he was watching on a monitor in the back room.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Did he? I haven't seen that reported anywhere. 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/798713/did-kavanaugh-lie-under-oath-about-watching-fords-testimony

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

More power to them.  It was good enough as a cause of action to impeach President Clinton.

And for similar reasons - except in this case, with larger potential results. Clinton being scandalized and having trouble with an election isn't the same thing as lying under oath repeatedly in order to secure a job you want. 

Especially when said job involves, well, being fairly nonpartisan and truthful. 

[SweetPea]

6 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Ford sent her note before Kavanaugh was even the nomination and did it in July when there was plenty of time for Trump to choose someone else. If she was doing this to specifically stop a conservative justice, the fact pattern does not support this and your assertion that she was willing to thrust herself in public, lie to Congress, face death threats, be forced to move out of her home and have her family in protective custody to do so is dishonest as hell. Keep trying.

And yet these accusations have not come to light until the very end. Which brings us to an important point. Ford herself may not think this way, but it's very possible that other people who she has confided in do, and I think that is more likely what has happened here. I don't think she wanted it to go this way, regardless of whether or not she is telling the truth.

I also think it's worth mentioning that she has received over half a million dollars of gofundme donations so far. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Mexal said:

WSJ reported he was watching on a monitor in the back room.

 

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/798713/did-kavanaugh-lie-under-oath-about-watching-fords-testimony

Thanks. This is actually important. It shows that he could very well be a pathological liar. It's understandable to lie about something major, i.e. his interactions with Ford or his involvement in the torture memos, but this?You lie about things like this if your default position is to lie when confronted. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

And yet these accusations have not come to light until the very end.

That's not Ford's problem, though, so your idea that she had plenty to 'gain' here is obviously wrong based on this. And the allegations came to light 3 weeks ago publicly anyway; Republicans could have requested an FBI investigation during that time as well. 

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

Which brings us to an important point. Ford herself may not think this way, but it's very possible that other people who she has confided in do, and I think that is more likely what has happened here. I don't think she wanted it to go this way, regardless of whether or not she is telling the truth. 

There is a bit of truth to this. We still do not know who leaked her letter to the press, which is what caused her to finally go public with all of this. Prior to that she was likely not going to go public, and Feinstein's attempt to have the FBI investigate it quietly would likely have failed and that would be that. 

Once it was leaked, however, Ford had little recourse but to go public. 

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

I also think it's worth mentioning that she has received over half a million dollars of gofundme donations so far. 

That might, if she's lucky, cover about a half of her lawyer fees. 

[Mexal]

5 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

And yet these accusations have not come to light until the very end. Which brings us to an important point. Ford herself may not think this way, but it's very possible that other people who she has confided in do, and I think that is more likely what has happened here. I don't think she wanted it to go this way, regardless of whether or not she is telling the truth.

I also think it's worth mentioning that she has received over half a million dollars of gofundme donations so far. 

Sure, that's possible. Still has nothing to do with Ford having anything to gain which was my original assertion and which you called me dishonest for.

[SweetPea]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

That might, if she's lucky, cover about a half of her lawyer fees. 

Didn't her lawyer say they were doing this pro bono and did not expect any payment in return? Or have I misunderstood that?

[Cas Stark]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

That's not Ford's problem, though, so your idea that she had plenty to 'gain' here is obviously wrong based on this. And the allegations came to light 3 weeks ago publicly anyway; Republicans could have requested an FBI investigation during that time as well. 

There is a bit of truth to this. We still do not know who leaked her letter to the press, which is what caused her to finally go public with all of this. Prior to that she was likely not going to go public, and Feinstein's attempt to have the FBI investigate it quietly would likely have failed and that would be that. 

Once it was leaked, however, Ford had little recourse but to go public. 

That might, if she's lucky, cover about a half of her lawyer fees. 

I thought her lawyers were working pro bono

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

Didn't her lawyer say they were doing this pro bono and did not expect any payment in return? Or have I misunderstood that?

Yea, this is true.

[Kalbear]

Just now, SweetPea said:

Didn't her lawyer say they were doing this pro bono and did not expect any payment in return? Or have I misunderstood that?

Not that I'm aware. If so, that's cool. 

Also note that she has a lot more than just lawyer fees - she has security fees, travel fees, she basically had to quit her job for a while, etc. It's disruptive to her and her family. I doubt seriously that she's making any actual money out of this. The GoFundMe specifically states it is for her security expenses.