|
Post by epaul on Sept 28, 2018 16:59:49 GMT -5
Trump picked him because made a statement (after Bill Clinton) that a sitting president should not be investgated ahile in office. It takes away from his focus to run the nation. Which, pre-Trump, was regarded by several as a reasonable viewpoint and as something worth considering. (which was the reason he wrote the article, for consideration and discussion). He wrote the article based on his observations made in Clinton Time. It is unreasonable to view the article through a distorted lens formed in Trump Time. Trump Time is a very unusual time.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 28, 2018 17:04:43 GMT -5
OK, the news says that Trump has asked the FBI to investigate. However, it also says Democrats have demanded the 5 day time limit be lifted to unlimited. Yup, back to the delay thing. The circus should have 3 rings. We have had the Sparticus ring and the Ford ring. What is the third ring? I suspect we'll know soon.
Lest there be any doubt, I hate Democrats. They are evil.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Sept 28, 2018 17:30:35 GMT -5
Who is Brett kavanaugh?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 28, 2018 17:38:56 GMT -5
"And in Our system, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Yes, this circus isn't 'real court' it's supposedly a job interview but it's in front of Congress where lies carry the threat of legal prosecution; at my last job interview there was no such equivalency.
"And, presumption of innocence doesn't mean 'well he probably did it but we can't prove it so let's not charge him but let's also not give him the job'. It means he is innocent and should bear no penalty nor endure any discrimination - such as withholding a job for which he is qualified."
I intended to leave this thread alone but I think this is a key point. Jeff expressed somewhat similar views. I could not disagree more completely, and the disagreement isn't technical.
The question is who should fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The only interests that really matter are the country's. We don't owe Judge Kavanaugh anything. I'd have typed that sentence in all capitals but that's annoying. He has no more entitlement to the position than I do.
There are any number of highly qualified, conservative judges of unquestionable character and integrity who could be selected instead of Judge Kavanaugh. Why should we select someone who would come in under a cloud and diminish public confidence in our nation's highest court?
Kavanaugh doesn't have to be convicted of anything to be rejected. The Senate simply has to conclude that the country would be better off with someone else. Unless I'm missing something, epaul is quite correct. There's time to change nominees and get a different person confirmed before there are any changes in the makeup of the Senate. I think it would be politically advisable for the Republicans, and certainly better for the country, to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination and pick someone without his baggage.
I think this point is key because I keep hearing about fairness to Kavanaugh from people who support his confirmation. I think that puts the focus on the wrong set of interests.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 28, 2018 17:59:16 GMT -5
"And in Our system, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "Yes, this circus isn't 'real court' it's supposedly a job interview but it's in front of Congress where lies carry the threat of legal prosecution; at my last job interview there was no such equivalency. "And, presumption of innocence doesn't mean 'well he probably did it but we can't prove it so let's not charge him but let's also not give him the job'. It means he is innocent and should bear no penalty nor endure any discrimination - such as withholding a job for which he is qualified." I intended to leave this thread alone but I think this is a key point. Jeff expressed somewhat similar views. I could not disagree more completely, and the disagreement isn't technical. The question is who should fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The only interests that really matter are the country's. We don't owe Judge Kavanaugh anything. I'd have typed that sentence in all capitals but that's annoying. He has no more entitlement to the position than I do. There are any number of highly qualified, conservative judges of unquestionable character and integrity who could be selected instead of Judge Kavanaugh. Why should we select someone who would come in under a cloud and diminish public confidence in our nation's highest court? Kavanaugh doesn't have to be convicted of anything to be rejected. The Senate simply has to conclude that the country would be better off with someone else. Unless I'm missing something, epaul is quite correct. There's time to change nominees and get a different person confirmed before there are any changes in the makeup of the Senate. I think it would be politically advisable for the Republicans, and certainly better for the country, to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination and pick someone without his baggage. I think this point is key because I keep hearing about fairness to Kavanaugh from people who support his confirmation. I think that puts the focus on the wrong set of interests. I don't know, man. Up until a couple of weeks ago this guy was a well respected judge on the D.C. court. There wasn't a blemish on his record until he was nominated for the Supreme court by a president hated by the left for not being a leftie as far as I can tell. They don't seem to have any other viable reason. So, the guy's a conservative constitutionalist which isn't illegal and they have nothing on him after 6 background checks by the FBI for the other jobs he has had. How can Democrats allow the court to become more conservative and constitutionalist? That would ruin all their plans for decades. Schumer says he'll stop this appointment regardless of cost so they go on a all out war against him but there's no ammunition. Well, last resort, they delay until they can get the senate back and since there's no basis they throw the trump. pun intended, card, sex. It's the way they've always played the game and they've been pretty successful for a long time, hell almost 50% of the population thinks Socialism beats Capitalism, despite no evidence to that. Hey, this is for the life of the Democrat party. A conservative court won't let them get away with the shit they've been getting away with since the '60s. This is all out war. Poor Kavenaugh is merely a pawn in the game. So's Ford really although she's a willing pawn. Allowable losses if the war is to be won.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 28, 2018 18:01:07 GMT -5
Good post, Don.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Sept 28, 2018 18:04:25 GMT -5
. There are any number of highly qualified, conservative judges of unquestionable character and integrity who could be selected instead of Judge Kavanaugh. Why should we select someone who would come in under a cloud and diminish public confidence in our nation's highest court? Because everyone else you can name who’d fit the bill would come in under a similar cloud. The Dems will see to it. Let us watch and wait: if another nomination comes up under 45, I won’t be proven wrong on that.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 28, 2018 18:11:05 GMT -5
... Fact: So far, nobody knows with certainty who is telling the truth. ... And in Our system, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, this circus isn't "real court" it's supposedly a job interview but it's in front of Congress where lies carry the threat of legal prosecution; at my last job interview there was no such equivalency. And, presumption of innocence doesn't mean "well he probably did it but we can't prove it so let's not charge him but let's also not give him the job". It means he is innocent and should bear no penalty nor endure any discrimination - such as withholding a job for which he is qualified. But it's pointless arguing this with people that have already decided he is the poster boy for sexual assault. If this isn't politically motivated why is Bill Clinton a hero and Kavanaugh the devil? Nice cherry picking. Or maybe you just fell asleep before you read the whole post. As I said, I’d be happier proven wrong with an FBI investigation clearing Kavanaugh than I would be continuing to assume that he’s lying, based on the facts we do know. And yes, it’s pointless to argue if you’re arguing with the intent of getting me to assume your assumptions. To Bruce’s point, I don’t think there should be an arbitrary time limit on the investigation. It should be done right with the goal of fact finding (truth would be nice), bearing in mind that time is a priority. That might take three days, as it did with Anita Hill, or it might take years, as it did with Hillary’s emails. Whatever. At the end of the investigation we should be able to feel reasonably confident that they uncovered all uncover-able facts from a 36 year old alleged rape.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 28, 2018 18:13:06 GMT -5
. There are any number of highly qualified, conservative judges of unquestionable character and integrity who could be selected instead of Judge Kavanaugh. Why should we select someone who would come in under a cloud and diminish public confidence in our nation's highest court? Because everyone else you can name who’d fit the bill would come in under a similar cloud. The Dems will see to it. Let us watch and wait: if another nomination comes up under 45, I won’t be proven wrong on that. Are you suggesting Democrats would manufacture false accusations of sexual assault for any other potential nominee, or are you just saying that they would oppose the nominee?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 28, 2018 18:20:57 GMT -5
I think he is saying they would denigrate his or her character and smear the person with whatever they could. That is a reasonable assumption. It is just another political campaign. Business as usual. The other guy is bad for you, bad for the country.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 28, 2018 18:23:52 GMT -5
Because everyone else you can name who’d fit the bill would come in under a similar cloud. The Dems will see to it. Let us watch and wait: if another nomination comes up under 45, I won’t be proven wrong on that. Are you suggesting Democrats would manufacture false accusations of sexual assault for any other potential nominee, or are you just saying that they would oppose the nominee? There are no depths that the Democrats will not go to to stop Trump's agenda of restoring the country to its constitutional roots. IMHO, based upon years of watching them.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 28, 2018 18:27:36 GMT -5
Paul, of course they would. As they should. After Merrick Garland, anything is fair game for Democrats. Wait, make that almost anything. I would expect a vigorous opposition to any nominee, but I’d draw the line at lying. Dig up the dirt on a nominee, but don’t manufacture it.
Regarding the politics of the Supreme Court, I saw an interesting stat the other day. The majority (51%) of Trump supporters believe that Trump should be able to overrule Supreme Court decisions. That, to me, is mind-boggling.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 28, 2018 18:31:21 GMT -5
Paul, of course they would. As they should. After Merrick Garland, anything is fair game for Democrats. Wait, make that almost anything. I would expect a vigorous opposition to any nominee, but I’d draw the line at lying. Dig up the dirt on a nominee, but don’t manufacture it. Regarding the politics of the Supreme Court, I saw an interesting stat the other day. The majority (51%) of Trump supporters believe that Trump should be able to overrule Supreme Court decisions. That, to me, is mind-boggling. Guess I didn't get polled on that one.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Sept 28, 2018 18:41:54 GMT -5
I think he is saying they would denigrate his or her character and smear the person with whatever they could. That is a reasonable assumption. It is just another political campaign. Business as usual. The other guy is bad for you, bad for the country. Pretty much. Again, don’t take my word for it; watch and listen. —- Nobody asked me, but, my opinion is that we’ve reached a point where a large percent of the country believes or disbelieves allegations against politicians largely based on their political leanings—which is just all sorts of fucked up, when you boil it down. I’m fairly Dougian at this point, and have no party, and I’m not soecifically defending Kavanaugh; rather, I’m inclined to defend anyone who could concievably end up in his position. Anyone who’s gone through a contentious divorce, business deal, or even faculty meeting knows that people will say all sorts of shit that has no hard evidence behind it to get their way. And, because I can see it coming, let me state openly that I believe that Dr. Ford is telling the truth, as she recalls it, and that Judge Kvanaugh is also telling the truth as he recalls it. Anyone familiar with memory theory, traumatic event recall, and just the passage of time will see that there is no contradiction to be had in that opinion...which is precisely why relying on 35+ year-old heresay without backing evidence for anything other than facebook likes is so fraught with peril. Let me also say that I don’t know whether this guy should be confirmed: SCOTUS-level jurisprudence is not my bailiwick. I do know that sidelining him over acusatuons sans corraborating durable evidence—and in contrast to decades of track record—is setting a very dangerous precedent, for all sides of the aisle. As St Doug noted, all those critters on both sides are mostly the same. Again, JMO. don’t shoot the messenger.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 28, 2018 18:46:13 GMT -5
Small observation: If somebody dragged my name through the dirtiest mud imaginable, and if I were innocent, I'd be pretty upset myself. I might even start ranting at a Senate hearing, alternatingly crying and scowling, tossing off conspiracy theories, demanding senators answer questions about their drinking habits, and generally acting like a mad man. But - Catch 22 - now that this side of Kavanaugh has been exposed, and can never be unexposed, a lot of people (including me) would not like to see that kind of volatility on the Supreme Court. Unfair, maybe, yes. But the way it is.
By the way, I would lay odds that he was advised by Trump himself to adopt the Trump strategy for dealing with attacks by hitting back with a vengeance. I think he went too far, but then again, I often think the same thing about Trump.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Sept 28, 2018 18:52:41 GMT -5
Apropos of not much, but the autocorrect resulting from combining this forum with my ipad and my eyeballs is astonishing, and not in the good way. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 28, 2018 18:58:02 GMT -5
I think that's a defensible argument, and is the most benign explanation as far as Kavanaugh goes, but I'm more inclined to think his memory on this is selective at a minimum, and to seriously suspect he is flat-out lying. My evidence is his inexplicable (in my opinion) refusal to demand an FBI investigation, which he would have to know would come up with nothing, if there were nothing to come up with. This put him in the position of seeming to want his seat on the court at any cost, even if it meant living for the rest of his life under a bigger cloud than he otherwise would if he'd embraced a followup FBI probe. It smacks of desperation, and, I think, guilt.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 28, 2018 18:58:33 GMT -5
... I saw an interesting stat the other day. The majority (51%) of Trump supporters believe that Trump should be able to overrule Supreme Court decisions. That, to me, is mind-boggling. That is scary. If there is anything at all accurate and honest about that poll. I have become skeptical about the veracity and accuracy of many polls. It started when I saw a poll that said 30% of all Americans believe there is a good chance at least one of their representatives in Washington is a space alien. That was close to 40 years ago, and I have been asking people ever since if they thought there was a good chance one of their representatives in Washington was a space alien, and outside of Delbert Maki, who thought they all were and had proof, I have not had a single person reply in the affirmative. Only one out of hundreds. That's not even close to 30%. Polls, especially social polls, are tricky things. Too often, we are given answers without the questions or the context. And often, people are just cantankerous when asked stupid questions by people they regard as a nuisance. (similarly, I don't believe those photos of typical Walmart shoppers are representative photos of typical Walmart shoppers. I suspect crafty selectivity and posing is involved. In short, trickery!)
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 28, 2018 19:05:36 GMT -5
I too am skeptical of polls for the same reasons. But, given the staggering amount of ignorance among Americans about how their government works, this would not surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Sept 28, 2018 19:16:24 GMT -5
Name one poll, one... (besides the young turk’s viewer poll; that was an *epic* eye-opener for me back in 2016) that had Hillary losing the election. I’ll trust a poll on the soundhole. Let’s do a predictive one on SCOTUS justice Kavanaugh (not whether he should be, but rather, a crowd-sourced guess at whether he will), and see how we do. (But make it a blind poll, so we still get along afterwards) ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|