The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[BigRedBuster]

43 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

 

The Dems are going back to high school......and this is what they find slimy?

 

Welcome to party politics 101.

[schriznoeder]

28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The Dems are going back to high school......and this is what they find slimy?

 

Kavanaugh is up for a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land. So everything he's ever said or done is fair game... even things that happened in high school. It'll probably end up being a big nothing burger, but I think we all have the right to know.

[TGHusker]

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

My thoughts exactly.

 

 

Put a fork in it.  If that is all the Dems have.  It is done. Well done.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, schriznoeder said:

 

Kavanaugh is up for a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land. So everything he's ever said or done is fair game... even things that happened in high school. It'll probably end up being a big nothing burger, but I think we all have the right to know.

 

If that's the case, then I also have no problem with 65 women speaking out saying they have never had a bad experience with him.  And...I don't find it slimy.

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

The Dems are going back to high school......and this is what they find slimy?

 

Welcome to party politics 101.

 

Generally I want the branches of government to function well to bestsellers serve the people. But Mitch McConnell started this fight, and at this point I fully support taking the gloves off to fight back. An idiot who has no idea how government works and thinks it's his personal plaything for increasing his popularity and stocking his bank account is about to oppose their second Heritage-bot to a lifetime Supreme Court seat. I'm perfectly fine playing hardball at this point.

 

Not that I think this is a particularly effective attack. I think Kavanaugh will ultimately be appointed when the only two people with the spine or incentive to prevent it - Collins and Murkowski - tow the party line. 

 

Just because there's really no good avenue of attack given the circumstances, it doesn't stop people from being pissed as hell about what has become of the Court.

[knapplc]

Even if Kavanaugh was 18 at the time of this alleged assault (making him a legal adult), it's SUPER questionable to go back that far, now, and make the allegation that he's unfit for office based on that thing we've heard about that has no evidence and is well beyond the statute of limitations for prosecution.

 

There are a lot of reasons why this nominee should not be seated. But this is not one of them.

[Danny Bateman]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Even if Kavanaugh was 18 at the time of this alleged assault (making him a legal adult), it's SUPER questionable to go back that far, now, and make the allegation that he's unfit for office based on that thing we've heard about that has no evidence and is well beyond the statute of limitations for prosecution.

  

There are a lot of reasons why this nominee should not be seated. But this is not one of them.

 

I don't know that anyone has actually made that allegation though. I think it's just classic muckraking on the part of the Dems. It gives the people whose Senators ultimately wind putting him on the court another reason to dislike them.

 

There are most definitely better reasons, though.

[Moiraine]

It seems like a stupid plan if the allegation was made up, since it came from a senator who’s clinging to her seat and might lose it this year. 

[BigRedBuster]

I'm going to say this with the express point that I fully understand how bad sexual assault is and I don't take it lightly.

However, there is a reason why some legal offenses are tried as a juvenile and then the punishment and treatment of the conviction is different after the person is an adult.

 

If he were still a teenager and this came out, go for it.  Punish him and make sure he understands that what he did was wrong.  However, when it's been this long and nobody can claim or show that this behavior has continued into his adulthood, I don't see the relevance of going back to HS on something like this.

 

Good Lord....I was an immature imbecile at that age and did things I am not proud of.  Should I be forever judged by my actions at 16 or 17?

[FrankWheeler]

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm going to say this with the express point that I fully understand how bad sexual assault is and I don't take it lightly.

However, there is a reason why some legal offenses are tried as a juvenile and then the punishment and treatment of the conviction is different after the person is an adult.

 

If he were still a teenager and this came out, go for it.  Punish him and make sure he understands that what he did was wrong.  However, when it's been this long and nobody can claim or show that this behavior has continued into his adulthood, I don't see the relevance of going back to HS on something like this.

 

Good Lord....I was an immature imbecile at that age and did things I am not proud of.  Should I be forever judged by my actions at 16 or 17?

 

If you tried to rape someone and then lie about it not happening then yes you should be forever judged for those actions.

[Danny Bateman]

18 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm going to say this with the express point that I fully understand how bad sexual assault is and I don't take it lightly.

However, there is a reason why some legal offenses are tried as a juvenile and then the punishment and treatment of the conviction is different after the person is an adult.

  

If he were still a teenager and this came out, go for it.  Punish him and make sure he understands that what he did was wrong.  However, when it's been this long and nobody can claim or show that this behavior has continued into his adulthood, I don't see the relevance of going back to HS on something like this.

  

Good Lord....I was an immature imbecile at that age and did things I am not proud of.  Should I be forever judged by my actions at 16 or 17?

 

The relevance is he's the most Roe hostile justice nominated in decades and he's credibly been accused of sexual assault. It's not a great pairing. 

 

I'm not particularly in favor of this line of attack, but I applaud Democrats unloading on this nominee with everything they have trying to stop his appointment. Mitch McConnell decided long ago the Supreme Court was worth taking the gloves off for, and Democrats (who perpetually get characterized as spineless limp noodles afraid of confrontation) are punching back with bare knuckles. 

 

It seems like Kavanaugh/the White House are preparing to go down the Bill Clinton road with this accuser. If nothing else, when he gets confirmed, this will further destroy their standing with women who aren't firmly on the Trump Train.

[methodical]

45 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm going to say this with the express point that I fully understand how bad sexual assault is and I don't take it lightly.

However, there is a reason why some legal offenses are tried as a juvenile and then the punishment and treatment of the conviction is different after the person is an adult.

 

If he were still a teenager and this came out, go for it.  Punish him and make sure he understands that what he did was wrong.  However, when it's been this long and nobody can claim or show that this behavior has continued into his adulthood, I don't see the relevance of going back to HS on something like this.

 

Good Lord....I was an immature imbecile at that age and did things I am not proud of.  Should I be forever judged by my actions at 16 or 17?

 

I'm right there with you, I wouldn't want to be judged for drunken stupidity even in my 20s.  The difference is I have no illusions that I could make it through the vetting process of high profile public service, nor would I deserve to be appointed to the supreme court.  I'd fully expect my stupid decisions to follow me if I was in a position to try.

 

In order to get a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land, probably yes, it should be taken into account.  It's stuck with the victim this long obviously, and she was still discussing it in therapy 6 years ago, and if it's true, he caused that trauma.  Obviously its not a criminal matter at this point, but I'd say yes, that being appointed to the supreme court should be for people who were self aware enough in high school to not do anything like the sexual assault he's accused of.

 

It's not going to matter to the senate republicans and he'll likely get appointed anyways unless the senate has a guilty conscious about Clarence Thomas (who also shouldn't be serving on the highest court in the land), but were I a republican woman I'd be asking myself "Why do so many of the men my party supports have a history of sexual violence and lack of respect for women?" when that happens.

[Danny Bateman]

It's instructive to note why this worries Republicans. It is not the content of the allegation.

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

2 minutes ago, methodical said:

 

I'm right there with you, I wouldn't want to be judged for drunken stupidity even in my 20s.  The difference is I have no illusions that I could make it through the vetting process of high profile public service, nor would I deserve to be appointed to the supreme court.  I'd fully expect my stupid decisions to follow me if I was in a position to try.

 

In order to get a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land, probably yes, it should be taken into account.  It's stuck with the victim this long obviously, and she was still discussing it in therapy 6 years ago, and if it's true, he caused that trauma.  Obviously its not a criminal matter at this point, but I'd say yes, that being appointed to the supreme court should be for people who were self aware enough in high school to not do anything like the sexual assault he's accused of.

 

It's not going to matter and he'll likely get appointed anyways unless the senate has a guilty conscious about Clarence Thomas (who also shouldn't be serving on the highest court in the land), but were I a republican woman I'd be asking myself "Why do so many of the men my party supports have a history of sexual violence and lack of respect for women" when that happens.

 

Well said, methodical. This is a very good, nuanced take.

 

I'm no Republican, but I'm very much disturbed by how they're willing to elevate power above literally any moral or ethical transgression. Power is all that matters to them now, ultimately. 

 

I'm also no woman, but it's becoming extremely clear why the GOP is so deeply underwater with women in pretty much every poll right now.

[FrankWheeler]

As a father of girls this whole conversation about "not being judged by my behavior as a drunken 17 year old" freaks me out.