The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[Guy Chamberlin]

I really wish we could get away from these 35 year old charges, when Brett Kavanaugh was only 17, and concentrate on the choices he made as a man, a lawyer, and a political operative.

 

David Brock knew him well and even shared his conservative beliefs. So with all due respect to Dr. Ford, let's consider these adult and job-relevant decisions in Kavanaugh's job application for the most critical swing vote in our lifetime:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

[irafreak]

I just want to chime in with something here.  This is mostly the anti-kavanaugh crowd that I'm addressing but keep in mind, I can't stand politicians in general so just hear me out.

 

What is the major complaint about the guy?  From what I can see, the guy has gone through 6 FBI checks already to get to his current position on the US court system.  Don't you think information would have already been made known had those other checks found anything?  

 

Second, what's the big fear about him being on the court?  It looks as though he's extremely impartial on his rulings in the past.  Now I've heard a lot of stuff in the news about Roe V Wade but that's just fear tactics isn't it?  I mean we were already supposed to be in a war with NK now that Trump is president.  Obama was the anti-christ by some.  Why do we allow ourselves to be manipulated by these smuks in washignton (who own the news networks)? 

 

Let's look at this objectively.  First, the supreme court can't just pull up old cases and change rulings.  A new case would have to be presented similar to the original RVW case to readdress things.  Second, do we really all believe this is going to be altered?  It's been in the books for a LOOOONG time.  Even if it is, it's likely to just put the choice into the hands of each individual state.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing.  I like the thought of being able to stay in the midwest because we do things differently than the coasts.  The government already mandates way too much of our lives.  The states were originally supposed to have most of the authority.  And even if...big if...the state's have the say on abortion legality, does anyone honestly believe there will be politicians that are going to risk angering half their voting population by trying to change things?  We're talking about politicians here.  They aren't going to jeopardize their big cushy jobs over this.  

 

So can we just see this thing for what it really is?  Delay tactics.  They had this woman's statement for 2 months.  Plenty of time to run all the investigations (and I'm sure they have already cause why wouldn't you find all that dirt and present it?).  Now it's politics...like a filibuster...but we're talking about messing up people's lives and that makes me sick.  Because now we're setting a new precedent that you are guilty and it's up to you to clear your name with only someone's accusation.  If they can do this to a supreme court judge nominee, they can do it to any one of us.  I've been falsely accused...it's awful.  You feel so helpless.  Thankfully, our justice system doesn't take one person's word over the over....until now.  

 

I simply can't agree that there should be a different rule of law for a supreme court justice nominee than everyone else.  And that's the argument being made.  We either have a system of law or we have anarchy.  This is anarchy.  This should not be tolerated.  This threatens us regular citizens now as it will eventually become the new law applied to all of us.  As a college professor and single father of 3, this scares the hell out of me.  All it would take with this new set of rules is a single spiteful student throwing an accusation at me over a grade and ruining my kids financial security.  

 

Just try to keep an eye on the big picture.  These politicians are the very definition of corruption.  Don't trust them or their news programming.  Dig up your own data.  That's the beauty of the internet (until they regulate that too like china), we have the power to make up our own minds by being able to find both sides of the story.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

See my previous post.

[Nebfanatic]

10 minutes ago, irafreak said:

I just want to chime in with something here.  This is mostly the anti-kavanaugh crowd that I'm addressing but keep in mind, I can't stand politicians in general so just hear me out.

 

What is the major complaint about the guy?  From what I can see, the guy has gone through 6 FBI checks already to get to his current position on the US court system.  Don't you think information would have already been made known had those other checks found anything?  

 

Second, what's the big fear about him being on the court?  It looks as though he's extremely impartial on his rulings in the past.  Now I've heard a lot of stuff in the news about Roe V Wade but that's just fear tactics isn't it?  I mean we were already supposed to be in a war with NK now that Trump is president.  Obama was the anti-christ by some.  Why do we allow ourselves to be manipulated by these smuks in washignton (who own the news networks)? 

 

Let's look at this objectively.  First, the supreme court can't just pull up old cases and change rulings.  A new case would have to be presented similar to the original RVW case to readdress things.  Second, do we really all believe this is going to be altered?  It's been in the books for a LOOOONG time.  Even if it is, it's likely to just put the choice into the hands of each individual state.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing.  I like the thought of being able to stay in the midwest because we do things differently than the coasts.  The government already mandates way too much of our lives.  The states were originally supposed to have most of the authority.  And even if...big if...the state's have the say on abortion legality, does anyone honestly believe there will be politicians that are going to risk angering half their voting population by trying to change things?  We're talking about politicians here.  They aren't going to jeopardize their big cushy jobs over this.  

 

So can we just see this thing for what it really is?  Delay tactics.  They had this woman's statement for 2 months.  Plenty of time to run all the investigations (and I'm sure they have already cause why wouldn't you find all that dirt and present it?).  Now it's politics...like a filibuster...but we're talking about messing up people's lives and that makes me sick.  Because now we're setting a new precedent that you are guilty and it's up to you to clear your name with only someone's accusation.  If they can do this to a supreme court judge nominee, they can do it to any one of us.  I've been falsely accused...it's awful.  You feel so helpless.  Thankfully, our justice system doesn't take one person's word over the over....until now.  

 

I simply can't agree that there should be a different rule of law for a supreme court justice nominee than everyone else.  And that's the argument being made.  We either have a system of law or we have anarchy.  This is anarchy.  This should not be tolerated.  This threatens us regular citizens now as it will eventually become the new law applied to all of us.  As a college professor and single father of 3, this scares the hell out of me.  All it would take with this new set of rules is a single spiteful student throwing an accusation at me over a grade and ruining my kids financial security.  

 

Just try to keep an eye on the big picture.  These politicians are the very definition of corruption.  Don't trust them or their news programming.  Dig up your own data.  That's the beauty of the internet (until they regulate that too like china), we have the power to make up our own minds by being able to find both sides of the story.  

You haven't been reading this thread just based off your first question. Also Kavanaugh is not impartial. He is a partisan hack and the only reason they are trying to ram him through is so Trump has some cover on the SC bench. It's obvious getting Kavanaugh in there has been a disaster so far. Why do they keep pushing when they could just put forth another nominee for confirmation? My guess is because Trump likes Kavanaughs moral flexibility.

 

You also realize this is a job interview right? Innocent until proven guilty only applies to our judicial system. I know plenty of employers who would want nothing to do with hiring Kavanaugh

Edited September 29, 2018 by Nebfanatic

[methodical]

4 hours ago, irafreak said:

I just want to chime in with something here.  This is mostly the anti-kavanaugh crowd that I'm addressing but keep in mind, I can't stand politicians in general so just hear me out.

 

What is the major complaint about the guy?  From what I can see, the guy has gone through 6 FBI checks already to get to his current position on the US court system.  Don't you think information would have already been made known had those other checks found anything?  

 

Second, what's the big fear about him being on the court?  It looks as though he's extremely impartial on his rulings in the past.  Now I've heard a lot of stuff in the news about Roe V Wade but that's just fear tactics isn't it?  I mean we were already supposed to be in a war with NK now that Trump is president.  Obama was the anti-christ by some.  Why do we allow ourselves to be manipulated by these smuks in washignton (who own the news networks)? 

 

Let's look at this objectively.  First, the supreme court can't just pull up old cases and change rulings.  A new case would have to be presented similar to the original RVW case to readdress things.  Second, do we really all believe this is going to be altered?  It's been in the books for a LOOOONG time.  Even if it is, it's likely to just put the choice into the hands of each individual state.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing.  I like the thought of being able to stay in the midwest because we do things differently than the coasts.  The government already mandates way too much of our lives.  The states were originally supposed to have most of the authority.  And even if...big if...the state's have the say on abortion legality, does anyone honestly believe there will be politicians that are going to risk angering half their voting population by trying to change things?  We're talking about politicians here.  They aren't going to jeopardize their big cushy jobs over this.  

 

So can we just see this thing for what it really is?  Delay tactics.  They had this woman's statement for 2 months.  Plenty of time to run all the investigations (and I'm sure they have already cause why wouldn't you find all that dirt and present it?).  Now it's politics...like a filibuster...but we're talking about messing up people's lives and that makes me sick.  Because now we're setting a new precedent that you are guilty and it's up to you to clear your name with only someone's accusation.  If they can do this to a supreme court judge nominee, they can do it to any one of us.  I've been falsely accused...it's awful.  You feel so helpless.  Thankfully, our justice system doesn't take one person's word over the over....until now.  

 

I simply can't agree that there should be a different rule of law for a supreme court justice nominee than everyone else.  And that's the argument being made.  We either have a system of law or we have anarchy.  This is anarchy.  This should not be tolerated.  This threatens us regular citizens now as it will eventually become the new law applied to all of us.  As a college professor and single father of 3, this scares the hell out of me.  All it would take with this new set of rules is a single spiteful student throwing an accusation at me over a grade and ruining my kids financial security.  

 

Just try to keep an eye on the big picture.  These politicians are the very definition of corruption.  Don't trust them or their news programming.  Dig up your own data.  That's the beauty of the internet (until they regulate that too like china), we have the power to make up our own minds by being able to find both sides of the story.  

 

Yeah this isn't JUST delay tactics and when the fbi does background checks it interviews friends/family and acquaintances at the time.  It doesn't dig into the past much unless its either criminal record or financial.  So its very likely that if these women were silently bearing the burden of these things it wouldn't have ever been see by any previous investigation.

 

Even if it was just to delay, which I don't believe it all of it is necessarily disagree that some of it is, but why does that matter?  If these alleged incidents prove true what-so-ever does this man deserve to be promoted to the highest court?  Have you watched any of the hearings, I ask because you see that when D senators were asking for further investigation they simply shut them down.

 

4 hours ago, irafreak said:

I simply can't agree that there should be a different rule of law for a supreme court justice nominee than everyone else.  And that's the argument being made.  We either have a system of law or we have anarchy.  This is anarchy.  This should not be tolerated.  This threatens us regular citizens now as it will eventually become the new law applied to all of us.  As a college professor and single father of 3, this scares the hell out of me.  All it would take with this new set of rules is a single spiteful student throwing an accusation at me over a grade and ruining my kids financial security.   

 

This isn't a different set of rules.  This is him interviewing with the senate for a seat on the highest court of the land and having people from his past see that step forward to say "wait no this isn't the type of person you want on the court because he's done things in his past that should disqualify him from steering the direction of justice in this country."

 

And there it is, it scares you, but it shouldn't for your livelihood unless you're doing inappropriate things with students or putting yourself in positions where it seems like you are, those claims are investigated and not publicly on a national scale. 

 

It should scare you for your children and the lives they are going to have when you aren't there to protect them, because perpetuating the way things are and have been devalues their personal autonomy, especially for women, and leads them into having bear the shame emotional scars of sexual assault, abuse, and rape.  The statistics on it are like 1 in 71 men are raped in their lives, 1 in 3 women are victims of sexual violence and 1 in 5 are raped and almost 2/3 cases of rape are never reported to authorities.  This isn't a case where calling for the status-quo is sustainable.

[Ric Flair]

I haven’t read every post in this thread, so I apologize if this point has already been made. but what Ford describes sounds like it could have been a lot of things that aren’t “attempted rape.” It sounds a lot like drunk kids wrestling around at a party snd one getting pinned under another for a minute...either in the commotion or as a clumsy and fumbled attempt at making out.

 

She seems like a nice lady and like whatever happened obviously traumatized her. But I don’t think the motives of the guy involved, whether Kavanaugh or someone else, can fairly be assumed to be rape.

[Ric Flair]

Just now, methodical said:

 

Yeah this isn't just delay tactics and when the fbi does background checks it interviews friends/family and acquaintances at the time.  It doesn't dig into the past much unless its either criminal record or financial.  So its very likely that if these women were silently bearing the burden of these things it wouldn't have ever been see by any previous investigation.

 

Call it a delay tactic all you want, I don't necessarily disagree that some of it is, but why does that matter?  If these alleged incidents prove true what-so-ever does this man deserve to be promoted to the highest court?  Have you watched any of the hearings, I ask because you see that when D senators were asking for further investigation they simply shut them down.

 

 

This isn't a different set of rules.  This is him interviewing with the senate for a seat on the highest court of the land and having people from his past see that step forward to say "wait no this isn't the type of person you want on the court because he's done things in his past that should disqualify him from steering the direction of justice in this country."

 

And there it is, it scares you, but it shouldn't for your livelihood unless you're doing inappropriate things with students or putting yourself in positions where it seems like you are, those claims are investigated and not publicly on a national scale. 

 

It should scare you for your children and the lives they are going to have when you aren't there to protect them, because perpetuating the way things are and have been devalues their personal autonomy, especially for women, and leads them into having bear the shame emotional scars of sexual assault, abuse, and rape.  The statistics on it are like 1 in 71 men are raped in their lives, 1 in 3 women are victims of sexual violence and 1 in 5 are raped and almost 2/3 cases of rape are never reported to authorities.  This isn't a case where calling for the status-quo is sustainable.

 

I don’t think those stats are accurate or credible. I think they overstate the number for women and understate it for men.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

[Landlord]

4 hours ago, irafreak said:

tl;dr

 

Let's look at this objectively. 

 

...

 

even if...big if...the state's have the say on abortion legality, does anyone honestly believe there will be politicians that are going to risk angering half their voting population by trying to change things?  We're talking about politicians here.  They aren't going to jeopardize their big cushy jobs over this.  

 

Okay well you obviously aren't looking at this objectively if you don't see that politicians do this all the time lol

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I haven’t read every post in this thread, so I apologize if this point has already been made. but what Ford describes sounds like it could have been a lot of things that aren’t “attempted rape.” It sounds a lot like drunk kids wrestling around at a party snd one getting pinned under another for a minute...either in the commotion or as a clumsy and fumbled attempt at making out.

 

She seems like a nice lady and like whatever happened obviously traumatized her. But I don’t think the motives of the guy involved, whether Kavanaugh or someone else, can fairly be assumed to be rape.

 

Pretty silly and unimportant distinction to focus on Ric. Per the testimony, even if it wasn't accurately attempted rape, it was still definitively sexual assault. Same with the other allegation.

 

Don't have to assume a motive of rape to determine a a reality of an assault. 

[Dbqgolfer]

4 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

Okay well you obviously aren't looking at this objectively if you don't see that politicians do this all the time lol

 

 

 

 

Pretty silly and unimportant distinction to focus on Ric. Per the testimony, even if it wasn't accurately attempted rape, it was still definitively sexual assault. Same with the other allegation.

 

Don't have to assume a motive of rape to determine a a reality of an assault. 

To be accurate, misdemeanor assault.

[Nebfanatic]

2 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said:

To be accurate, misdemeanor assault.

Nope, I think sexual assualt is perfectly accurate.

[Dbqgolfer]

12 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

Nope, I think sexual assualt is perfectly accurate.

According to the State of Maryland, where this allegedly took place, says misdemeanor assault.

[Nebfanatic]

25 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

According to the State of Maryland, where this allegedly took place, says misdemeanor assault.

(a)   A person may not engage in a sexual act with another:

(1)   by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other;

(2)   if the victim is a substantially cognitively impaired individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the sexual act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a substantially cognitively impaired individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual; 

 

that is straight out of the Maryland lawbook. The bolded sounds just a little bit like Kavanaughs alleged actions, no?

[TGHusker]

On 9/28/2018 at 4:36 PM, knapplc said:

 

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.

Agreed.  This isn't like the Garland situation under Obama.  There still remains a good chance that the Repubs hold the Senate.  If Trump has to remove the Kav nomination, knowing Trump he will dig in deeper and submit an even more unacceptable (in philosophy) candidate from the Dems perspective but one who is so clean that the Dems can't use these tactics of delay.  Of course a 'clean' candidate is probably one with less experience, less of a track record to judge, and has a more hidden life.  That isn't what we want.  Before long, any nomination will have to be done with 'Stealth' in mind -  All of this works against our 'open' process.   

This whole process sucks.  Garland would have been a very acceptable alternative to the Repubs in any other situation.  But to keep the ideological balance they had to torpedo that nomination.   Kav in any other situation probably would be acceptable for the Dems.    As one former president said "Elections have consequences".  What will the Dems do if Trump has the opportunity to nominate 2 or 3 more in the 2nd half of his term?  Any action will produce a corresponding reaction - (what's that law of thermodynamics - it applies here).  After this, future Trump nominees will not be more moderate - his temperament won't allow him to 'throw a bone (and I don't mean this: )  to the Dems.  

 

No one is asking but here is my gut feeling:  The FBI investigation will come up 'clean' and Kav will get on the bench.  I don't see how this won't affect his future rulings.  The Dems and left leaning causes won't get any favors from him.   How he was treated will forever be a imprint on his psyche.  His accuser:  I do believe something happened to her.  I am not convinced by the testimony of both that it was Kav.  The shadow of doubt remains.  Providing due process was never the objective of the committee by either side - Dems - guilty until proven innocent, Repubs: guilty or innocent just get him through the process.   Without fair due process we cannot get to the truth.   The process sucked and I've never been so disappointed in the performance of a whole committee as what we've seen.  This has got to be fixed.  On one side, I totally agree with Lindsey Graham's rant (who I rarely agree with- the war monger that he is)

One the other side, the accuser needed her day in court to get her story out - but not this way.  Both Kav and the accuser were not served well by the process.  When politics trumps due process then our democracy and what it stands for is in jeopardy.  With that I'll get off my  

[Ric Flair]

This is all about abortion. Democrats don’t want someone like Kavanaugh on the Court for fear he will overturn Roe/Casey. I thiught that was unlikely based on Kavanaugh’s history. But the ultimate F U to the Democrats who accused him of being a sexual predator and gang rapist in front of his wife, children, and parents would be to go ahead and overturn it.

 

Democrats are doing themselves no favors with their despicable tactics. They’ll either wind up with an enraged Kavanaugh more likely to overturn Roe/Casey or with a different nominee who is more likely to overturn Roe/Casey.

[Danny Bateman]

57 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

This is all about abortion. Democrats don’t want someone like Kavanaugh on the Court for fear he will overturn Roe/Casey. I thiught that was unlikely based on Kavanaugh’s history. But the ultimate F U to the Democrats who accused him of being a sexual predator and gang rapist in front of his wife, children, and parents would be to go ahead and overturn it.

 

Democrats are doing themselves no favors with their despicable tactics. They’ll either wind up with an enraged Kavanaugh more likely to overturn Roe/Casey or with a different nominee who is more likely to overturn Roe/Casey.

 

I see you're choosing your own reality and ignoring what the rest of us are actually saying, Ric. Disappointing.