Printable View
Just to be clear, I have no idea. I gave 3 options where neither are lying and Doc added a 4th that I agree could be a possibility. I think it is possible either could be lying or neither.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
In fact, I will say again (as I already have) that I think none of us have nearly enough evidence to know either way (which is why it tends to be "political" which side most of us lean toward).
I'm thinking you misread my post. I do not think any Senators vote changes because of this investigation (except the 4 on the fence possibly).Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
I wasn't talking about the Senators vote on Kavanaugh.
I am talking about the mid-term election. And you re-stated exactly what I believe. I think if Kavanaugh been rejected, it HELPS the Republicans in the mid-terms.
And if he was accepted with no investigation it HELPS the Democrats in the mid-terms.
So the fact that Flake delayed so that there is an investigation Imo means it is fairly politically neutral. Which means the Dems will take the House (as expected) and the Reps will hold onto the Senate (as expected).
If I was a Republican...this couldn't have turned out better (outside of the accusations never happening in the first place). He will likely get confirmed. And the Dems don't have as much "outrage" with the one week investigation as they would have. Win win in a political sense. And you can thank Flank for that.
Imo, the agreement with Flake was a poor political decision by the Dems (unless Kav doesn't get confirmed at all).
If I had a psychology professor who was so traumatized that she needed a second door in her house, I'd likely ask for another psychology teacher.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanISSELisdaman
Beginning thoughts from Alan Dershowitz, who once again proves he his one of the most clear headed and honest thinkers of our age:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alan...al-mccarthyism (rest is the WSJ, which you may or may not be able to read)
He's a civil libertarian and a defense lawyer, but he's true to it no matter who it might be. Maybe the last true high profile civil libertarian left, after the ACLU caved.
Yeah, no kidding!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
I agree, btw, that he should not be denied a seat based on allegations alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Having said that, the Supreme Court has become an absolutely political entity now. We see it in the votes. We see it in the decisions. And we see it in the nomination processes.
Because of that, the judges being confirmed often have to act as politicians.
Whether it SHOULD deny him a seat (I do not believe it should) is different than whether it will of course. This accusation would cost many politicians an election. And in a similar way, it may cost him a seat on the High Court.
Again, I don't think it should. And I actually don't think it will. I think he will be confirmed by the end of this week or early next week. And as I've said a few times...I think them doing this investigation hurts the Dems in the mid-terms and helps Kavanaugh on the bench. They would have been far better, politically speaking, to let Flake go along with the other Republicans and let the "outrage" swell into the mid-terms.
This "he is a sloppy drunk" accusation that is now floated is a joke. Having been thru multiple lower level government background checks, I can personally atest that alcohol consumption and behavior is a most basic level point for these checks, and I'm sure this was investigated 6 times in his case. Were he a belligerent or combative drunk he never would have gotten this far. As for his temperment, his actions on the bench have never come in question in 12 years. He should be indignant over a false accusation, and he should have been combative IN RETURN to combative nature that the democrats on the committee came at him
Fords ex-boyfriend is now saying, that she helped a friend prepare for a polygraph. That would shoot a major hole in her testimony.
Those questions in the testimony may not have been a dumpster fire after all, if it was to set her up for perjury.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanISSELisdaman
It didn't sell on TV, but the end game may blow up in her face. We'll see.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chr...y-sounds-alarm
Numerous things contradicted by his statement.
1) She claimed a fear of flying to delay testimony. He says she had no fear.
2) She lived in a small apartment with only one door.
3) She never mentioned Kavanaugh or being assaulted to him, they dated 6 years 1992-98 (not definitive of course but interesting).
4) He said he saw her help a friend prepare for a polygraph test, saying that woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and US Attorney's office.
Per her statement under oath she said she had: "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process was stressful and uncomfortable.
She had the second door added to her house in 2008, not 2012. The purpose wasn’t to provide another egress for her, but to have an entrance to allow renters an egress to part of her home she was renting to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
The Supreme Court isn't just now becoming a political entity. The problem for some (including most of the media) is the Court is more conservative now, so their outcomes must be dismissed as purely political. However, in the 1960's and 1970's the Court was overtly political and these same people had no problem with it because the Court was liberal back then. Whether you support abortion or not, the Roe v. Wade decision was essentially a legal sham. There was no constitutional basis (whether you consider the text of the constitution or the Court's precedent) for that decision. Also, the Court at that time was very hostile to religion in its establishment clause cases (school prayer, public religious display -- nativity scenes, etc. decisions). You could also include affirmative action, labor disputes, etc. You could make a very persuasive argument that the Court was more political back then than it is now. The only thing that has changed is that the "right side" isn't necessarily winning anymore.
This. The warren court was one of the more activist courts in history, though some of the courts of old were also very activist at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodycat
The court isn't being political unless you disagree with their decision, then they're being political, lol
The court has in fact always been political in its way, going way back to key decisions like Marbury v Madison, which went a long way to establishing judicial review in the first place. That was Marshall clearly being "activist" and very political in his decision, b/c he could render the notion of review, knowing he had no real way to enforce it.
The Court has also always taken a reading on public sentiment in decisions as well. They can be very slick in their ability to render decisions without going so far as to alienate the population to a point where their credibility is undermined.
In the end there is very little black letter basis for their influence, it comes from the respect they have built as an institution and their image as an arbiter of the other branches. The Court is generally very political in how they guard that image and power.
For example, they will choose to not take cases. The court shifted the 2nd Amendment strongly with the MacDonald and Heller decisions, but instead of following those up by clarifying carry rights, they have for subsequent years simply refused to hear those cases. The reason is that if they enforce the precedents of Heller and MacDonald they will move that pendulum even further, and that would be too far too fast for the current social and political climate. They move in smaller steps on purpose, consciously.
So it's always been well aware of politics, and is nearly always very deft at preserving its influence in its choices, even though it is often split in the actual decisions. They still all act together to preserve that political power.
"Elections have Consequences" -- Barrach Obama --January 23, 2009Quote:
Originally Posted by goodycat
So now that the FBI investigation found nothing, I guess all those who clamored for it like like Feinstein, Booker, Harris, etc... are going to vote "Yea" :lmao:
Oh trust me, I absolutely know the court has been "political" for some time. It should probably be in a different thread/post but I would love to talk about the case that I believe started that (its a fantastic case to debate as I have had students do in the past).Quote:
Originally Posted by goodycat
This guy really does seem to get it...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen...r-mocking-ford
In that he basically said to nominate a woman b/c she couldn't be attacked with these kinds of charges. I guess politically that's astute, but what's interesting is the two women on the list are both arguably more conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
I don't disagree with him, as it would also help to diffuse the use of Roe v Wade to pump up the Democratic base. But that doesn't mean the woman he chose wouldn't have had some smear used against her either, it just would have been harder to pull off IMO.
Something from the Marshall court perchance? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
Sounds interesting. I’m always up for a good discussion like thatQuote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
There would have been issues getting either Collins or Murkowski to support either of the two ladies, which is the reason Kavanaugh was nominated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
I say get it over with already and move on to the next episode.
Politics has overtaken pro wrestling and Americans thrive on it. And many actually believe it's real.
:party0052:
Cloture motion passes, final confirmation vote will be held after 30 hours of debate, which means sometime Saturday.
When I have time I will start a thread on this board with it. Its a fun discussion. And one that is not a "party line" opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodycat
So it appears Collins is a yes. She milked for all it was worth so the political traction she garnered from the national eyes will likely keep her in congress for years to come. Her monolgue was accurate but I could have done without the "Me Too", where it refers to the reasons to find Kavanaugh "not guilty"....."YEAH, ME TOO"
And yes, I know its not a trial but a job interview. Of course I've never heard of or been a part of a job interview where the applicant is accused of sexual assault and gang rape.
Manchin is a yes as well.
Appears Pence can sleep late tomorrow,
Flake(y) shows why he had no shot at reelection with a solid maybe.
Kavanaugh’s confirmation is now official.
The politics of this nation has become an abomination...on both sides ��
IMO the Republican side of the aisle just made a huge mistake.
Yes and no. Will help energize the base for the Dems, but they did just seat a Justice, and that's a win for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
GOP should probably hold the Senate, may even gain a seat, but that's not guaranteed. House will be in question, going to depend on turnout.
But the Dems helped the GOP base turn out as well with the 11th hour opposition tactics, based on the poll numbers. If they still turn out even though Kavanaugh got seated it could end up being a political wash.
But you can't not seat a Justice even for sake of midterm elections. Kennedy went ahead and retired b/c there was a good chance the GOP would lose in the midterms, as the party out of the Presidency does almost always.
So the GOP gets a shift in the court, albeit not a huge one, at a time when they really probably won't lose any more than they might have lost anyway. It wasn't an unreasonable move.
If there was a mistake, it was not nominating a woman simply to have a candidate who is much harder to smear and attack. IMO if anything should be second guessed, that's where the mistake happened. Kavanaugh is a good candidate, with a good record, and funny enough is somewhat less conservative than the female options.
They would have gotten a more conservative Justice with probably less political blowback with a woman nominee.