The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[Moiraine]

14 minutes ago, ZRod said:

The therapist probably can't say anything without violating some ethics code.

 

Also, wasn't there a report that many of her classes new that she had some kind of incident with a high ranking judicial official?

 

 

Pretty sure a therapist can talk if they’re given permission by the person they’re talking about. Only ‘cause it makes logical sense though.

[RedDenver]

43 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Allegedly. Interesting that she has refused to turn over those notes. So no one is really sure how she recovered this memory or what it consisted of. 

Ford said she would hand over her notes to the FBI if they interviewed her. I wonder why the FBI didn't interview her?

[ZRod]

34 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Pretty sure a therapist can talk if they’re given permission by the person they’re talking about. Only ‘cause it makes logical sense though.

True.

[Ulty]

Dems had EVERY possible reason to want to stop the Gorsuch nomination. That was Merrick Garland's seat that was blatantly hijacked and stolen by Mitch McConnell and the GOP for no other reason than to deny Obama the ability to do his job. If Gorsuch had baggage like Kavanaugh, it would have even been a nastier fight that what we just saw.

 

The Kavanaugh battle was not some orchestrated event that suddenly made strategic political sense for the Dems because of which seat was vacant. It was a battle over a guy being worthy of the appointment or not. 

[HuskerNation1]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Well, they would have had to set up this hoax 6+ years ago when Ford told her therapist about the event.

 

Well Ford was unwilling to share her therapist notes but what is known of what she told the therapist differed from what she shared at the hearing.  There are disrepancies between who was there, how many, etc... And she never shared that the boy who was involved was Kavanaugh until his nomination.. When you add in her other lies including about assisting with a polygraph, claiming she had a fear of flying which is not true, and claiming she was terrified and had to have a 2nd door installed after she told her husband about an assault despite construction permits showing the door was added before she told her husband and it was to enable tenants to live there, her whole story became less and less credible.  Factor in that she is a Democrat and her attorney Katz has ties to Soros, it's not hard to see the writing on the wall about the hoax.  Then you have Ramirez who comes along with a story that the NY Times could not even corroborate, and it took 6 days of talking to a counselor to decide it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her, and this is after she contacted friends saying she really was not sure it was him.  It was nice that the New Yorker did a great photo op to portray her as a victim and included that nice Puerto Rico shirt.  Then we get to Julie Swetnick whose ex-husband said she was bad news and who was let go for making defamatory claims before, and who claimed that, as an adult, she went to high school parties where teen girls were getting raped, and she kept going back over and over.  

[knapplc]

6 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

Well Ford was unwilling to share her therapist notes but what is known of what she told the therapist differed from what she shared at the hearing.

 

How do you know that there were discrepancies if she didn't share the notes?

 

7 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

Factor in that she is a Democrat and her attorney Katz has ties to Soros

 

Is there a person who is not a conservative who doesn't have ties to George Soros?  I'm not conservative. Do I have ties to George Soros?

[Ric Flair]

37 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Ford said she would hand over her notes to the FBI if they interviewed her. I wonder why the FBI didn't interview her?

 

Her attorneys, one of whom is a fervent anti-Trump protestor and the other who represented McCabe, only said that in a belated attempt to get entice the FBI into an unnecessary interview.

 

The records had been requested for weeks. If they show what she says they do, why not just turn them over?

[HuskerNation1]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

How do you know that there were discrepancies if she didn't share the notes?

 

 

Is there a person who is not a conservative who doesn't have ties to George Soros?  I'm not conservative. Do I have ties to George Soros?

 

What she told and shared with the Washington Post differed from what was shared at the hearing.  

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/holes-in-christine-blasey-fords-testimony-cast-doubt-that-brett-kavanaugh-was-her-assailant

 

And no, I don't believe every Democrat is tied to Soros, but Katz sure was.

 

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/accusers-lawyer-connection-soros/

[Ric Flair]

16 minutes ago, Ulty said:

Dems had EVERY possible reason to want to stop the Gorsuch nomination. That was Merrick Garland's seat that was blatantly hijacked and stolen by Mitch McConnell and the GOP for no other reason than to deny Obama the ability to do his job. If Gorsuch had baggage like Kavanaugh, it would have even been a nastier fight that what we just saw.

 

The Kavanaugh battle was not some orchestrated event that suddenly made strategic political sense for the Dems because of which seat was vacant. It was a battle over a guy being worthy of the appointment or not. 

 

Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch was only controversial because of the way the Garland nomination was handled. It was trading one comservative for another.

 

Replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh is a game-changer. Suddenly a bunch if 5-4 decisions liberals love, on everything from gay marriage to abortion to gerrymandering were in potential danger. The Dems were willing to go to the mattresses to prevent that.

[HuskerNation1]

4 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch was only controversial because of the way the Garland nomination was handled. It was trading one comservative for another.

 

Replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh is a game-changer. Suddenly a bunch if 5-4 decisions liberals love, on everything from gay marriage to abortion to gerrymandering were in potential danger. The Dems were willing to go to the mattresses to prevent that.

 

This is spot on.  Scalia was not the swing vote on the court and the timing was not close to the mid-terms so the Dems opposed Gorsuch but not as strongly.  The fight against Kavanaugh was the culmination of a 2-year Resistance tirade where Schumer thought that a series of baseless allegations would cause Kav to withdraw or Trump to pull the nomination.  The GOP actually hung together and fought off the slanderous attacks and, in the process, the right is more unified now than I have seen in a long time.

[ZRod]

Gotta say, I really appreciate Sean and Tucker sticking it out today.

[QMany]

36 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

And she never shared that the boy who was involved was Kavanaugh until his nomination. 

 

Speaking of lies...

 

"On July 6, 2018, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the President as soon as possible before a nominee was selected. I called my congressional representative and let her receptionist know that someone on the President’s shortlist had attacked me. I also sent a message to The Washington Post’s confidential tip line. I did not use my name, but I provided the names of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. I stated that Mr. Kavanaugh had assaulted me in the 1980s in Maryland." Christine Blasey Ford's opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh on July 9, 2018.

[HuskerNation1]

7 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

Speaking of lies...

 

"On July 6, 2018, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the President as soon as possible before a nominee was selected. I called my congressional representative and let her receptionist know that someone on the President’s shortlist had attacked me. I also sent a message to The Washington Post’s confidential tip line. I did not use my name, but I provided the names of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. I stated that Mr. Kavanaugh had assaulted me in the 1980s in Maryland." Christine Blasey Ford's opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh on July 9, 2018.

 

Sorry I should have said she never announced his name until he was on the short list.  He had been talked about as a frontrunner well before his nomination and before July 6.  Why did she not bring this forward for so many years, and why is she now saying she will not pursue anything further against Kavanaugh.  What about all the other inconsistencies and items lacking credibility I shared...care to comment on those?

[TGHusker]

7 minutes ago, ZRod said:

The therapist probably can't say anything without violating some ethics code.

 

Also, wasn't there a report that many of her classes new that she had some kind of incident with a high ranking judicial official?

I would think the FBI could get that interview if Ford had given consent. 

 

Regardless, I want to come back to Clifford's post about the Trump/Kennedy/ Gorsuch & Kav connection.    I think he brings up a valid point.  The circle or swamp has just gotten tighter and deeper with this nomination.  That is something I didn't think of before.  So many nominees come from the DC appellate  court -  they are already within the "club' by having that proximity to the SC, DC and power that is in that local.  We truly don't get a cross section of America on the court - culturally put also with the different regional perspectives.  Traditionally are Ivy league, Catholic, Northeasters relatively few  come from the Midwest, South or far west.   I think the court is probably more diverse at this point then any time I can think of which is a good thing, however, I think Trump missed the mark by 

 

Interesting Pew research article written during the Gorsuch nomination talking about the background of the jurists.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/what-backgrounds-do-u-s-supreme-court-justices-have/

 

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, Ulty said:

Dems had EVERY possible reason to want to stop the Gorsuch nomination. That was Merrick Garland's seat that was blatantly hijacked and stolen by Mitch McConnell and the GOP for no other reason than to deny Obama the ability to do his job. If Gorsuch had baggage like Kavanaugh, it would have even been a nastier fight that what we just saw.

 

The Kavanaugh battle was not some orchestrated event that suddenly made strategic political sense for the Dems because of which seat was vacant. It was a battle over a guy being worthy of the appointment or not. 

I agree wt the first paragraph.  The 2nd I have this difference - Kav was going to upset the philosophical balance on the court.  Kennedy was know to vote with both camps - conservative on some issues and liberal on others.  Kav is considered to be more conservative and may be a more consistent conservative vote.  So I think there was more reason to oppose him  Gorsuch was replacing Scalia  - a more conservative and the philosophical leader of the conservative wing on the court.  So the change from Kennedy to Kav is potentially more detrimental to the liberal leaning side.  I say that without denying the potential 'worthiness' issues you may site.