Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said:

They knew about the letter Feinstein had but didn't know exact allegations, so began the process of getting their letter written and signed.

That means the Republicans knew about it before they claim they did, which is what I said originally. Feinstein should be held to account for concealing the information, and Grassley and the other Repubs who knew should be held to account for trying to rush through the hearings instead of letting the facts come out.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Yeah....I found it pretty funny that an accused sexual molester is being endorsed by a child molester.  

 

You can't make this stuff up.

an accused sexual molester who was nominated by a serial molester is endorsed by a child molester.......and the bible thumpers support them.    is this bizarro america?

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

I thought this was an interesting thread on the twitter. Here's the last tweet in the thread, but the whole thing is worth reading. 

 

 

People are talking about the veracity of this woman's claim with zero actual information about it. We've heard rumors and there's a few allegations out there (apparently? I haven't looked for or seen them). But it appears that the belief spectrum falls along party lines - Democrats are inclined to believe the accuser, Republicans are inclined to believe the accused.

 

We'll likely never know for certain what actually happened that night 36 years ago. There's reason to believe something did, but that something could range from actual assault to simple boorish behavior.  One of those things should disqualify a Supreme Court nominee.  One shouldn't. There's a gray area between the two where confirmation starts & stops. 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

I thought this was an interesting thread on the twitter. Here's the last tweet in the thread, but the whole thing is worth reading. 

 

 

People are talking about the veracity of this woman's claim with zero actual information about it. We've heard rumors and there's a few allegations out there (apparently? I haven't looked for or seen them). But it appears that the belief spectrum falls along party lines - Democrats are inclined to believe the accuser, Republicans are inclined to believe the accused.

 

We'll likely never know for certain what actually happened that night 36 years ago. There's reason to believe something did, but that something could range from actual assault to simple boorish behavior.  One of those things should disqualify a Supreme Court nominee.  One shouldn't. There's a gray area between the two where confirmation starts & stops. 

 

 

 

I tend to believe the accusers, and I do here because I think she knew how terrible this would be to go through, but that’s not how the justice system works. OTOH, the justice system doesn’t apply here since no legal action will be taken.

 

I’m not totally buying the party lines thing unless you’re saying Democrats tend to believe the accuser regardless of the accused’s party. Democrats have spoken out against Democrats who were accused of similar things. And Democrats have resigned when accused.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

I’m not totally buying the party lines thing unless you’re saying Democrats tend to believe the accuser regardless of the accused’s party. Democrats have spoken out against Democrats who were accused of similar things. And Democrats have resigned when accused. 

 

In this situation.  I should have been more clear. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

In this situation.  I should have been more clear. 

 

 

I guess what I’m saying is I’m not convinced Democrats believe her because they’re Democrats. It’s hard for me not to think of the things Republicans overlook, and I don’t see near as much of it with the Democrats.

 

I’m sure Democrats are very happy with the situation for what it might get them, though. (But I think in the end it won’t matter)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I guess what I’m saying is I’m not convinced Democrats believe her because they’re Democrats. It’s hard for me not to think of the things Republicans overlook, and I don’t see near as much of it with the Democrats.

 

I’m sure Democrats are very happy with the situation for what it might get them, though. (But I think in the end it won’t matter)

 

Democrats got Al Franken to step down from the Senate. Democratic women in particular. Republicans didn't do that. To their credit, some in the GOP spoke out against Roy Moore. Others went to bat for him.

 

I don't think it'll matter, either. Kavanaugh will be on the Court. They'll make sure of it.

 

@knapplc I appreciate your points. The reason we don't have anything to back up these allegations is because the president refuses to direct his FBI to look into it and the Republicans running the Senate are utterly uninterested in turning over this stone. Our government is so strongly partisan and dysfunctional at this point that things that are damaging for those in power are simply going to be ignored no matter who it hurts.

 

The point is that somewhere along the way, gaining power or holding onto is was elevated above doing the right thing. Perhaps it BECAME the right thing to do.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

42 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

The point is that somewhere along the way, gaining power or holding onto is was elevated above doing the right thing. Perhaps it BECAME the right thing to do.

 

 

I think term limits in the House and Senate would save some of them from themselves. Many/most only care about being re-elected so they can keep getting the benefits that come from that. And the benefit isn’t in serving the country. Maybe in their first term they intend to do right, but it doesn’t last. If they knew they had 6 years and that was it, and they didn’t have to campaign again, I think you’d see more politicians doing what they think is right rather than what lobbyists tell them to do or what will keep them in office for another term. 

Link to comment

In other words - how can we get rid of the polarizing 2 party system?  We've de-evolved into a dysfunctional mess that cannot clean up messes like this nomination very well  and where party loyalty comes before ethics, integrity, honesty, and doing what is best for the nation.   Again we have 2 issues at play in this type of situation:  1. The accuser doesn't get her day in court to get a wrong corrected and 2.  The judge is being tried in the court of public opinion.    An honest investigation would meet both of their needs for fairness.  If the judge makes it to the SC (most likely) there will always be a 'stain' on his reputation from this type of half baked confirmation hearing.  Shame on Feinstein for holding the info back until this late hour and shame  on Grassley for ignoring it.   If I were the judge, I'd prefer that my name be cleared rather than rushing the nomination. (Unless I know I was guilty as charged) 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

People keep mentioning Feinstein holding onto the info.

 

It’s been explained that the accuser wanted to remain confidential, and the only reason it came out is because the existence of the letter became known. The question is how it became known. But yes the timing is suspicious. I don’t know if this was the ideal timing for Democrats though. Wouldn’t that have been a few weeks ago?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I tend to believe the accusers, and I do here because I think she knew how terrible this would be to go through, but that’s not how the justice system works. OTOH, the justice system doesn’t apply here since no legal action will be taken.

 

I’m not totally buying the party lines thing unless you’re saying Democrats tend to believe the accuser regardless of the accused’s party. Democrats have spoken out against Democrats who were accused of similar things. And Democrats have resigned when accused.

Tell that to Mary Jo Kopechne's family, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, and more recently (currently), Keith Ellison's ex-girlfriend.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

Tell that to Mary Jo Kopechne's family, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, and more recently (currently), Keith Ellison's ex-girlfriend.

 

 

When was the last time Bill Clinton ran for office? Or applied for a job?

 

The other examples are probably good. Especially Ted Kennedy getting elected over and over again.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...