The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

Agreed. I could care less about Kavanaugh, but how can you believe either person definitively. I think a lot of people in this thread have their blue tinted glasses on and are arguing for the simple fact that they don't like Kavanaugh and don't want another Republican to fill a seat. 

 

While most sexual assault claims are real, people can and will start using this to their advantage to slander others, especially in politics. 

 

I'm one of the bluest people here.

 

I've said repeatedly on this board this seat isn't getting held open. Regardless of everything, they will either put Kavanaugh on it or put another conservative there. The outcome in terms of rulings is going to be functionally the same.

 

This is about two things. The character of the people we elevate to power and the way we treat our women when they cry out for help. The message we're sending on both matters isn't good enough.

[Ulty]

51 minutes ago, Waldo said:

5. No, but people falsely accused of crimes can and should be very angry. He and his family have been through just as much as the Fords. He should have kept his emotions in check, but the questions were at times repetitive and elementary.  

 

Good post overall, but I'll argue against #5 for a bit. To the bolded, no way. Not unless Ford is making it up. She was sexually assaulted and has been living with the psychological trauma of it for 36 years. Kavanaugh has had a life of extraordinary privilege until this (alleged) skeleton fell out of his closet. And he could have spared his family some grief by bowing out of the process or by not acting like an ass in front of the world. 

 

As far as his anger and emotion, yes, false accusations can and should lead to anger. You or I or any other regular Joe might struggle if we are in that hot seat. A Supreme Court nominee making prepared statements should be expected to maintain more than a little more composure and decorum. 

[knapplc]

The reason they're limiting the scope of the FBI probe to the instant allegations is they know Kavanaugh has lied under oath and they don't want that looked into.

 

Think about that. This man is asking us to give him a lfetime appointment to the SC and he's lied under oath in testimony to congress. 

[BigRedBuster]

39 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

t isn’t nitpicking to say that it’s not really fair to compare how men treated accusers in the 90’s vs. now. It seems to me that people are more enlightened now than they were then. Some like to call it PC culture. Similarly, I like to think Osborne would have kicked Lawrence Phillips off the team if the same thing had happened today instead of in 1995.

 

But yet we are going back to the 80s when a kid is in high school. 

 

And jaunita was not treated well by Clinton supporters. 

[Nebfanatic]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

 

3. I'm not a huge Kavanaugh fan and wouldn't vote for him if it was an option(not in regards to the interview), but if Hillary and Trump are fit, then yes he is. 

 

 

 

Neither are fit to be a SCOTUS so that doesn't help your argument. Why not just concede he isn't fit and get behind a new nominee? Is this the hill to die on? Why? 

[knapplc]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

But yet we are going back to the 80s when a kid is in high school. 

 

And jaunita was not treated well by Clinton supporters. 

 

I get where you're coming from. When Clinton was accused in the 1990s the long knives came out from the Democrats, who followed in the wake of this new fresh face. They allowed themselves to become the Party of Clinton and became the worse for it.  In the same way that Ford has suffered character assassination by the Republicans, Juanita Broadrick and Paula Jones suffered from Democrats.

 

It wouldn't take much dot-connecting to trace today's ultra-partisan mood on Capitol Hill to the Clinton days. Many of us vividly remember Clinton absurdly debating the meaning of the word "is." 

[Nebfanatic]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I get where you're coming from. When Clinton was accused in the 1990s the long knives came out from the Democrats, who followed in the wake of this new fresh face. They allowed themselves to become the Party of Clinton and became the worse for it.  In the same way that Ford has suffered character assassination by the Republicans, Juanita Broadrick and Paula Jones suffered from Democrats.

 

It wouldn't take much dot-connecting to trace today's ultra-partisan mood on Capitol Hill to the Clinton days. Many of us vividly remember Clinton absurdly debating the meaning of the word "is." 

Bring on the comparisons. Shed light on this behavior from everywhere. Its easy to sit here and say my team would never do what they are doing but the fact is this isn't a red or blue issue its a people issue. We need to take a long look at these problems plaguing us right now. We need to look back and see these issues know no sides. This time in politics has incredible potential for course correction. Lets hope we can all take this time as a learning experience.

[Ulty]

There is no excuse for Clinton's accusers to have been mistreated. None. There were certainly politics at stake, and the culture was different back then, but that does not make it okay. Throwing shade at Democrats for any hypocrisy when comparing yesteryear to today is fair game. We all need to do better, when we all need to face our past demons, political and personal. 

 

How do we make it right today? Start by believing the victims who come out, treat them like humans, and no longer tolerate monsters who don't listen or don't care. 

[Moiraine]

34 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

But yet we are going back to the 80s when a kid is in high school. 

 

And jaunita was not treated well by Clinton supporters. 

 

 

Huh? The first part of your reply makes no sense.

 

We are talking about how people react to the allegations. The time period of the alleged incidents is completely and utterly irrelevant in my opinion.  My post wasn’t about whether rape was okay in the 90’s vs now (or in the 80s vs 70s, or as a 17 year old vs an adult). It was always wrong. We are talking about how people reacted to women who made the accusations in the 90s vs now and whether the reaction was due to politics or the times. When the incidents occured is another topic and not one I feel the need to discuss. I don’t care how long ago the incidents happened or that Kavanaugh was 17. What we were discussing was how people react to women making accusations of sexual assault. 

 

Again with Clinton, I’ve already made my argument. If you’re talking about how people treat her right now it’s fair game. If you’re talking about how they treated her in the 90s I don’t think it’s a very apt comparison. That doesn’t mean they were right, but times do change.

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, Ulty said:

There is no excuse for Clinton's accusers to have been mistreated. None. There were certainly politics at stake, and the culture was different back then, but that does not make it okay. Throwing shade at Democrats for any hypocrisy when comparing yesteryear to today is fair game. We all need to do better, when we all need to face our past demons, political and personal. 

 

How do we make it right today? Start by believing the victims who come out, treat them like humans, and no longer tolerate monsters who don't listen or don't care. 

 

 

 

So the Democrats = KKK because they were more racist 80 years ago. 

 

No, it’s not fair game. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

FIFY

 

Still....you gotta ask yourself, if you are Dr. Ford and you are risking perjury with your personal recollections, why would you put a third corroborating witness in the room? By name? And by name he is also a fellow assailant and the accused's best friend? 

 

And if you are Mark Judge and you are watching a woman clearly lying about you and your best friend, why aren't you in front of every camera defending Brett Kavanaugh? 

 

Time for a bit of fun:

 

 

 

[methodical]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I get where you're coming from. When Clinton was accused in the 1990s the long knives came out from the Democrats, who followed in the wake of this new fresh face. They allowed themselves to become the Party of Clinton and became the worse for it.  In the same way that Ford has suffered character assassination by the Republicans, Juanita Broadrick and Paula Jones suffered from Democrats.

 

It wouldn't take much dot-connecting to trace today's ultra-partisan mood on Capitol Hill to the Clinton days. Many of us vividly remember Clinton absurdly debating the meaning of the word "is."  

 

More to BRB, but Nothing in Clinton's history as a smarmy sleezeball, accused rapist, and intern-molester is acceptable not then and not now but at the time there was a bunch of "well yeah but, republican X did Y" too...  There was also a lot of pearl clutching and family values lecturing by the R's back then and we've seen how hollow that has rang over the last 20 years.  This what-about-ism is ridiculous, as if keeping a running tally of what the other side got away with is somehow going to balance the scales and everything will turn out okay.

 

All of these people should be held accountable, period.  Preferably immediately at the time of the crime, but that's just not the way it works, unfortunately.  It's easy to look back now through the lense of history and see that Clinton was wrong and should have been removed.  It's also easy to look back through that same lense of history right now and see that Brett Kavanaugh doesn't have the temperament to be a supreme court justice, nor the honesty, nor the alter-boy history he wants to claim.

 

Right now Republicans have lost their damned minds and made a Faustian bargain that Trump is going to get them to the promised land or something by bringing the religions vote, the gun vote, the uneducated, rural and the neo-nazi vote together and allow them to stack the deck against the next generations because they see where their power is going to go.  They've been willing to overlook their candidates and party members for racism, sexism, sexual assault, encouraging violence, being sexual predators against minors, etc.  This is yet another case where they want to leave ALL stones unturned and hope the American public shuts the hell up and forgets about it while they push another good ole boy into power. 

 

It's not the same as "ohh hey back in the 90s the Dems did X with Bill Clinton."  Even if it were, that sort of whataboutism isn't relevant.  Yeah the democrats back then did that, but that wouldn't fly anymore and if it did they'd lose a lot of supporters and I know cause I'd be one of the first ones out the door.

[Ulty]

11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

So the Democrats = KKK because they were more racist 80 years ago. 

 

No, it’s not fair game. 

 

What? Where did that come from?

 

What I meant was, if any Democrat was victim-shaming Clinton's accusers and trying to quash an investigation, they deserve to be called out as well, especially if any of the same Democrats say otherwise today (I don't have any specific examples, by the way). Their statements are a matter of public record. Now, I don't know how many such Democrats this sentiment applies to. I certainly would not expect that anyone would be as blatantly hypocritical as say Mitch McConnell, and hope that there was not the kind of vitriol that we saw from Lindsey Graham yesterday, but either way there is no excuse for it. 

 

But the "both sides do it" argument only works if there are specific examples to show that Democrats displayed were the same brand of monsters as today's Republicans are.

[TGHusker]

My only comment on this whole thing -  I was hoping Trump would have picked the female candidate for the job when he had the opportunity.  Kav was too much of a Repub insider based on his job in the Bush WH.  That didn't disqualify him but it didn't make me feel he would be totally unbiased.    This whole event could have been prevented if several different paths had been taken:

1.  Obama's choice, Garland, was not denied (Thus Trump's first pick for this current opening would have been Gorsuch- who was easily approved).  Poor sportsmanship breeds more poor sportsmanship.

2.  Trump had picked a less partisan candidate (most likely the  establishment Repubs pushed for  Kav)

3.  The Dems had not sat on the information they had in their hands at the beginning of this process

4.  The Reps had acted quickly in the interest of justice (for both the accused and the accuser )

 

After watching portions of the circus yesterday I frankly have mixed emotions on the outcome.   I think the accuser has some unexplained holes in her story and I don't think the accused

proved without a shadow of doubt his innocence.   Too much he said, she said.  It is only fitting that we now have a FBI investigation to try to sort it out in a hopefully unbiased Joe Friday "Nothing but the Facts" manner. 

 

[knapplc]

18 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

The Dems had not sat on the information they had in their hands at the beginning of this process

 

While the excuse for this was the request for anonymity, the bold was entirely their strategy. They're hoping to somehow delay and delay and delay this until the mid-terms, and (apparently) until after they've won the Senate (unlikely though that is) and foil the confirmation.

 

But as has been pointed out, if not Kavanaugh, it'll be someone else. No way they can pull a Merrick Garland and not seat another Supreme until Trump is possibly gone in 2021.