The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[Mierin]

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.

 

[Mierin]

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]

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:

 

[teachercd]

My thoughts exactly.

No kidding.

 

[methodical]

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.

 

[FrankWheeler]

Let me ask you this.  If this allegation were of him in junior high walking down the hall and pinching a girl on the butt and no other incident in his life can be found....should that be held against him?  That's considered sexual assault.  At what age is appropriate to go back to?

If he lies about it not happening under oath during his supreme court confirmation hearing it tells us a lot about his moral character and it should be held against him.  He's not lying as a junior high student, he's lying as an adult.

 

[Ulty]

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]

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.

 

[Mierin]

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.

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. 

 

[Danny Bateman]

Valid question.

2 things:

1)  I view a man in his 20s or later as different than a juvenile under 18.  The law also views these different in many cases for a specific reason.  

  

 2)  Also, this is an example of why victims of crimes and their families don't have the ability to dole out punishment for crimes.  If someone were to murder one of them, I shouldn't have the ability to decide their punishment either.  My own emotional ties to the issue cloud judgement.

  

Let me ask you this.  If this allegation were of him in junior high walking down the hall and pinching a girl on the butt and no other incident in his life can be found....should that be held against him?  That's considered sexual assault.  At what age is appropriate to go back to?

I agree with you on 1 and 2, but the question of legal punishment is vastly different than consideration for a lifetime seat on the Court that will directly affect lives of millions and millions of Americans. So it's kind of a moot point.

Regarding your hypothetical... no, I wouldn't consider that disqualifying. But that is grievously different from the accusation that's been lobbed at Kavanaugh.

 

[Danny Bateman]

FYI, for anybody who has a moral or ethical issue with this allegation:

Ben Sasse is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'm sure he would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

 

[FrankWheeler]

This is a really bad situation and it's terrible that somebody is either lying about being sexually assaulted or sexually assaulting someone.  

But, for all of the people saying, "high school, really?".  If one of your classmates brought up something you did during high school, would you?

A)  Admit it happened and say how stupid you were in that moment.  Maybe even apologize for such terrible behavior and what pain you may have caused for some of the people around you? 

2)  Refute and deny all allegations, how can anybody find out about what happened so long ago anyways?  

 

[Dbqgolfer]

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.   

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.  

 

[methodical]

Ditto. How the f#&% is holding a woman/girl down on a bed and trying to forcibly rip her clothes off and then whatever happens after that if she does’t get away considered a “stupid decision” ?

Not saying we know Kavanaugh did it but the post implying that behavior is a stupid decision is disturbing.

Perhaps bad phrasing on my part, but my drunken "stupid decisions" in my younger years are in no way near the level of forcing someone into a room with a friend blocking the door then assaulting them. so when I say I'd expect "stupid decisions" to follow me they aren't anywhere near that level, just general embarrassing actions.  To be absolutely clear: I wouldn't categorize sexual assault as a stupid decision, its a serious crime, and if it came across as I was minimizing it that was the opposite of my intention.

 

[Dbqgolfer]

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. 

Like Ellison?

 

[Mierin]

Perhaps bad phrasing on my part, but my drunken "stupid decisions" in my younger years are in no way near the level of forcing someone into a room with a friend blocking the door then assaulting them. so when I say I'd expect "stupid decisions" to follow me they aren't anywhere near that level, just general embarrassing actions.  To be absolutely clear: I wouldn't categorize sexual assault as a stupid decision, its a serious crime, and if it came across as I was minimizing it that was the opposite of my intention.

I probably overreacted to one small part of your post. I just, to use your words, don’t like people minimizing this because he was in high school. I do understand people finding it harder to believe because of the timing, though.

Now we’re talking about pinching girls in the hallway, which could probably be categorized as stupid teenage stuff as long as the person grew out of it, but it isn’t relevant because he’s not being accused of that. We don’t need to come

up with hypothetical hallway-pinchings when we have an action he was actually accused of.

 

[Mierin]

Valid question.

2 things:

1)  I view a man in his 20s or later as different than a juvenile under 18.  The law also views these different in many cases for a specific reason.  

2)  Also, this is an example of why victims of crimes and their families don't have the ability to dole out punishment for crimes.  If someone were to murder one of them, I shouldn't have the ability to decide their punishment either.  My own emotional ties to the issue cloud judgement.

Let me ask you this.  If this allegation were of him in junior high walking down the hall and pinching a girl on the butt and no other incident in his life can be found....should that be held against him?  That's considered sexual assault.  At what age is appropriate to go back to?

It’s not at all relevant what people think of a butt-pinching in high school. Age is not the ONLY factor here. If it was you wouldn’t see teenage murderers going to jail for years and years.

The severity of the crime is important too, so hypothetical butt-pinchings are pointless to discuss. We have a crime he was actually accused of. All that matters is whether an attempted rape while in high school is something that should be taken into account. 

It’s also important to note that this isn’t about locking him up for 20 years over something he did under 18. It’s only about him not getting a job. 

 

[Mierin]

Like Ellison?

Have you read my posts?