The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

TGHusker said:
The Dems had not sat on the information they had in their hands at the beginning of this process
Click to expand...


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.

 
Ulty said:
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.
Click to expand...




I got it from Republican claims that Democrats are racist because of who Democrats were 80 years ago. 

In hindsight, all these people were wrong. 

The question is whether the current ilk are hypocrites because of what Democrats did 20 years ago. I say you need to look at how they are behaving today when other Democrats are accused. 

Same thing goes with the claims of racism. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
commando said:
if things are so partisan that the dems had to cook up the idea of these claims...why didn't they do the same with the Gorsuch (sp?) nomination?   and i think the fact that in this case she was talking to her therapist about this assault years ago kind of lends credence to her claims.   
Click to expand...
The obvious answer to your question is that Gorsuch replacing Scalia did nothing to change the philosophical make up of the court.  It is assumed that Kavanaugh will change the philosophical make up of the court in a direction that the Democrats won't like.  

 
Moiraine said:
I got it from Republican claims that Democrats are racist because of who Democrats were 80 years ago. 

In hindsight, all these people were wrong. 

The question is whether the current ilk are hypocrites because of what Democrats did 20 years ago. I say you need to look at how they are behaving today when other Democrats are accused. 

Same thing goes with the claims of racism. 
Click to expand...
Like Ellison?

 
Dbqgolfer said:
I have, and I didn't notice that it was your post that I was responding to when I posted.  Sorry about that.
Click to expand...




Ellison is being investigated btw. It was internal at first but now it’s an external investigation, and his accuser won’t give up a video of him abusing her because it’s embarrassing. I’m not sure what you do with that - when someone says they have video then won’t release it. I’m wondering if it’s something they need to edit for nudity. I can understand why she wouldn’t want it released if that’s what she means. 

That said, the DNC has been making a lot of crappy choices for a long time. Like the entire 2016 election. If they keep him it’s not necessarily because it’s the right or smart thing to do. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
Ellison is being investigated btw. It was internal at first but now it’s an external investigation, and his accuser won’t give up a video of him abusing her because it’s embarrassing. I’m not sure what you do with that - when someone says they have video then won’t release it.

That said, the DNC has been making a lot of crappy choices for a long time. Like the entire 2016 election. If they keep him it’s not necessarily because it’s the right or smart thing to do. 
Click to expand...
I assume legally that a piece of evidence doesn't exist, until it is provided to investigators/court.

 
commando said:
or maybe gorsuch had no baggage and kavanaugh might have some?
Click to expand...




Exactly.

If anything had come to light of course the Democrats would have jumped on the opportunity, and the accusations against Kavanaugh are no less believable because the Democrats jumped on the opportunity.

One question I have is how the information on Ford leaked and forced Feinstein to release it at a... uh, suspicious time. One thing I wonder is if Ford was hopeful that something would save her from having to come out with it at all, e.g. Kavanaugh not passing through the first stuff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
Ellison is being investigated btw. It was internal at first but now it’s an external investigation, and his accuser won’t give up a video of him abusing her because it’s embarrassing. I’m not sure what you do with that - when someone says they have video then won’t release it. I’m wondering if it’s something they need to edit for nudity. I can understand why she wouldn’t want it released if that’s what she means. 

That said, the DNC has been making a lot of crappy choices for a long time. Like the entire 2016 election. If they keep him it’s not necessarily because it’s the right or smart thing to do. 
Click to expand...


The DNC (and the RNC, for that matter) is a good example of where parties get things seriously wrong. I wish both organizations go away. I think the goal should be to nominate liberals (and conservatives) who 1) are decent human beings and 2) have good ideas and want to go to Washington to do good. Instead these organizations exist to elect whomever the parties want. That's just stupid. They exist to elect those people and try to make the other team look bad. They're dumb and unnecessary entities. 

And the people who lead them frequently have to compromise themselves to do so. Tom Perez seems alright but he's got some seriously stupid positions on PAC and corporate donations. Ellison was the progressive darling but now we've got to see how this deal plays out. And Ronna Romney-McDaniel dropped the bolded from her Twitter handle at the request of the president to cuddle up to him for an RNC position, which honestly just makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

 
Moiraine said:
One question I have is how the information on Ford leaked and forced Feinstein to release it at a... uh, suspicious time. One thing I wonder is that Ford was hopefully that something would save her from having to come out with it at all, e.g. Kavanaugh not passing through the first stuff.
Click to expand...


From what I understood was explained yesterday, Ford had made a couple inquiries to press and her friends in addition to Feinstein prior to Kavanaugh being nominated. Once he was got past the Garland stage of being nominated the press interest picked up and presumably Ford or her friends leaked the information at that point.

I do know that the first outlet to report on the matter was the Intercept and this is what their DC Bureau chief had to say:


 
Clifford Franklin said:
From what I understood was explained yesterday, Ford had made a couple inquiries to press and her friends in addition to Feinstein prior to Kavanaugh being nominated. Once he was got past the Garland stage of being nominated the press interest picked up and presumably Ford or her friends leaked the information at that point.

I do know that the first outlet to report on the matter was the Intercept and this is what their DC Bureau chief had to say:
Click to expand...




If I were on the judicial committee and a Republican, I probably would have tried to come up with a way to ask Ford about this without sounding like a dbag. Something like "At what point this year did you decide you wanted to testify against Kavanaugh?" or... some kind of question that might lead into whether it was really Ford's wish that Feinstein sit on it.

Actually, it probably doesn't matter. Graham basically accused them of conjuring this whole thing right there without needing any more evidence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
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.
Click to expand...
So....the 90s is too far to go back because times were different......but we are going to go back to the 80s. 

Got it. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
So....the 90s is too far to go back because times were different......but we are going to go back to the 80s. 

Got it. 
Click to expand...




No, you don't get it. I've explained it 2-3 times and still nothing out of you but "Kavanaugh did it in the 80's when he was in high school."

Rape and attempted rape were never legal. People weren't okay with it in the 80's, 90's, 00's, or now. It's been illegal. I would say sexual harassment is a different story, but that isn't the allegation from Ford.

Questioning/belittling someone's allegation of sexual assault wasn't a crime in the 80's, 90's, 00's, or now, but the times have changed a lot on that and the questioning and belittling is happening a lot less now and people are less tolerant of it. The sheer # of people who have come out and said that something has happened to them with the #metoo stuff has kind of forced people to take it more seriously. Democrats would not get away with what the Republicans are doing right now with Ford if they wanted to win elections.

There is a big attitude shift in how people react to women who make allegations of sexual assault or sexual harassment. There isn't nearly as much of a shift in how people view the act of sexual assault, in my opinion. (again, I would say sexual harassment is a different story).

You are equating rape, a crime, with how people react, a non crime. These are 2 different topics. One is the crime itself. The other is how people react to accusations. The crime of sexual assault has been looked at similarly for decades, maybe a couple centuries. The reaction to accusations of assault and harassment has changed, and that is what I've been talking about this entire time. I don't give a crap what year Kavanaugh is supposed to have assaulted Ford, and have no interest in discussing it. I don't think the attitude about what he is accused of having done has changed a lot, I think the general attitude TOWARD PEOPLE WHO MAKE ACCUSATIONS has changed a lot. That's where I see the major culture shift. They are not the same to me and that should have been clear with my first explanation. If you think they're the same, fine. But quit just saying they are and thinking you've made some grand point with it by just saying "but in the 80's Kavanaugh."

I doubt the reason they doubted/belittled Juanita Broaddrick was because they thought rape from 21 years ago was okay. You're equating that with what I'm talking about. They are 2 different topics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top