Author Topic: SCOTUS  (Read 27299 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ram23

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6146
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #870 on: September 14, 2018, 12:25:54 PM »
The ability of conservatives to never believe women and to explain away possible attempted rape is truly disheartening for our society.

On the contrary your willingness to believe everything you're told, especially in cases like this where the source is anonymous, there's no evidence, and the allegation is not corroborated in any way, is beyond truly disheartening. It's downright scary.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #871 on: September 14, 2018, 12:26:27 PM »
The ability of conservatives to never believe women and to explain away possible attempted rape is truly disheartening for our society.

On the contrary your willingness to believe everything you're told, especially in cases like this where the source is anonymous, there's no evidence, and the allegation is not corroborated in any way, is beyond truly disheartening. It's downright scary.

It's "downright scary" to believe women?  TF is wrong with you?
Very Stable Genius

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #872 on: September 14, 2018, 12:28:26 PM »
https://splinternews.com/mysterious-letter-reportedly-accuses-brett-kavanaugh-of-1829057781

Quote
After Feinstein confirmed the letter’s existence, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released a letter Friday morning by 65 women who said they knew Kavanaugh in high school that said he “behaved honorably and treated women with respect.”

So Judiciary R's managed to find 65 character witnesses since Wednesday night?  Or do you think they knew about this allegation and had a response ready on standby in case it came out?
Very Stable Genius

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #873 on: September 14, 2018, 12:29:49 PM »
^ It has nothing to do with not believing her, it has everything to do with seeking the truth. Unfortunately, a 35 year old story does not carry the same weight of evidence than a story that happened last night. Memories fade over 35 years, it has nothing to do her sincerity or not, it has everything to do with the veracity for truth and you can't convict someone based on an allegation from 35 years ago.

Do you naturally believe someone who out of nowhere levels a 35 year old allegation against someone without any additional facts or any other person corroborating the story?  I am not saying you should not doubt her sincerity but that does not mean her claim is accurate.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #874 on: September 14, 2018, 12:29:57 PM »
Do you think when Stephen Breyer was nominated (three years after Clarence Thomas) they had letters from women who knew him in high school or college ready to go?  Of course not.
Very Stable Genius

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #875 on: September 14, 2018, 12:31:11 PM »
^ It has nothing to do with not believing her, it has everything to do with seeking the truth. Unfortunately, a 35 year old story does not carry the same weight of evidence than a story that happened last night. Memories fade over 35 years, it has nothing to do her sincerity or not, it has everything to do with the veracity for truth and you can't convict someone based on an allegation from 35 years ago.

No one is asking for a conviction in court, although perhaps the victim is.  Sexual assault cases do not have a statute of limitations in Maryland.
Very Stable Genius

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #876 on: September 14, 2018, 12:31:31 PM »
https://splinternews.com/mysterious-letter-reportedly-accuses-brett-kavanaugh-of-1829057781

Quote
After Feinstein confirmed the letter’s existence, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released a letter Friday morning by 65 women who said they knew Kavanaugh in high school that said he “behaved honorably and treated women with respect.”

So Judiciary R's managed to find 65 character witnesses since Wednesday night?  Or do you think they knew about this allegation and had a response ready on standby in case it came out?

So is he no longer fit because of an unsubstantiated allegation from 35 years ago? Is that the new standard now? This really makes the Dems look pretty pathetic.

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #877 on: September 14, 2018, 01:10:16 PM »
Yeah. And it looks like Feinstein doubted the allegations but only released that note after pressure from within the Democratic Party. Not good.

Offline ck

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 454
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #878 on: September 14, 2018, 01:21:34 PM »
The ability of conservatives to never believe women and to explain away possible attempted rape is truly disheartening for our society.

On the contrary your willingness to believe everything you're told, especially in cases like this where the source is anonymous, there's no evidence, and the allegation is not corroborated in any way, is beyond truly disheartening. It's downright scary.

It's "downright scary" to believe women?  TF is wrong with you?

Come on, that's twisting the argument a bit.  You don't either believe "women" or not.  But even not being a conservative, I would definitely have issues with presuming guilt over an issue that happened at a high school party 35 years ago with no corroboration.  It's not to say that it's false or she's lying, but without more to it, it doesn't reach the level needed to change the course of action on this.

I am not a supporter of Kavanaugh, but imagine the repercussions of allowing a single uncorroborated allegation from years ago to sway someone's career/livelihood.  There needs to be more to it than we've seen thus far.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6639
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #879 on: September 14, 2018, 01:41:46 PM »
The ability of conservatives to never believe women and to explain away possible attempted rape is truly disheartening for our society.

On the contrary your willingness to believe everything you're told, especially in cases like this where the source is anonymous, there's no evidence, and the allegation is not corroborated in any way, is beyond truly disheartening. It's downright scary.

It's "downright scary" to believe women?  TF is wrong with you?

Ram is correct.  There is nothing magical about being a woman that enhances credibility.  Ram's statement was gender-neutral.  It is scary to believe an anonymous, evidence-free, 35-year-old source whether that source is a man or a woman.  If an anonymous man "came forward" (to the extent we can call an anonymous, indirect source "coming forward") with 35-year-old allegations without evidence, it would be equally scary to believe that just because you wanted to believe it to accomplish something in today's political arena.

Restate your sentence substituting "men" for "women" and see how it sounds to you.  Does it sound different?  Why does it?  Should it?

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #880 on: September 14, 2018, 01:44:49 PM »
I hate to say this.... but my experience handling Title IX cases have dramatically increased my skepticism of sexual misconduct accusations. There is nothing more credible about a woman than a man.

Having said that, when it comes to allegations of domestic or sexual violence, I do believe that the woman should be presumed to be telling the truth. However, the subsequent investigation into those claims should be allowed to be as thorough as possible and permitted by law/

Offline Foraker

  • Great American Tower 665'
  • ***
  • Posts: 731
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #881 on: September 14, 2018, 02:42:42 PM »
Unfortunately, a 35 year old story does not carry the same weight of evidence than a story that happened last night.


https://splinternews.com/mysterious-letter-reportedly-accuses-brett-kavanaugh-of-1829057781
Quote
After Feinstein confirmed the letter’s existence, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released a letter Friday morning by 65 women who said they knew Kavanaugh in high school that said he “behaved honorably and treated women with respect.”

So Judiciary R's managed to find 65 character witnesses since Wednesday night?  Or do you think they knew about this allegation and had a response ready on standby in case it came out?

Bingo. There is no way that they found and signed 65 character witnesses overnight -- which means that they knew about this incident in advance.  So while a 35-year-old allegation may sound like sour grapes, having 65 character witnesses at the ready implies that Judge Kavanaugh knew this was coming.  Guilty conscience?

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #882 on: September 14, 2018, 02:44:54 PM »
Unfortunately, a 35 year old story does not carry the same weight of evidence than a story that happened last night.


https://splinternews.com/mysterious-letter-reportedly-accuses-brett-kavanaugh-of-1829057781
Quote
After Feinstein confirmed the letter’s existence, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released a letter Friday morning by 65 women who said they knew Kavanaugh in high school that said he “behaved honorably and treated women with respect.”

So Judiciary R's managed to find 65 character witnesses since Wednesday night?  Or do you think they knew about this allegation and had a response ready on standby in case it came out?

Bingo. There is no way that they found and signed 65 character witnesses overnight -- which means that they knew about this incident in advance.  So while a 35-year-old allegation may sound like sour grapes, having 65 character witnesses at the ready implies that Judge Kavanaugh knew this was coming.  Guilty conscience?

It also shows that they knew it was coming but decided not to address it in hearings.  What is the purpose of Senate oversight if you are just running a show trial?

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #883 on: September 14, 2018, 03:19:43 PM »
^ Because it is unsubstantiated allegations that did not need to be addressed in hearings. It was 35 years old and there was no other smoking gun. If this were a court, under the rules of evidence, such case would have been thrown out pretty quickly.

Now yes, this is not a courtroom and standard rules of evidence do not apply but if you think about the purpose for those rules, they are designed to ensure fairness. I think that is a good standard to run these hearings by from the beginning.

This has become a circus act and introduction of letters like this only make it worse.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #884 on: September 14, 2018, 03:25:07 PM »
Look, without knowing more about the allegation and any potential investigation that may follow, we can't say for certain whether or not Kavanaugh should be disqualified on this alone (the lying may be another matter).  That said, the response from Judicial Republicans is, "Look, we found all these people he didn't rape.  Let's not investigate and confirm him already!"  It's been 24 hours.  Have we learned nothing from the Me Too movement?

Let an actual independent investigation move forward.  Would it hurt to have someone besides Fed Soc and Trump's team investigate/vet this?  The FBI passed along the allegation to the White House to add to their background check.

We've also been ignoring his ties to Kozinski and Alex Azar for some reason.

All that said, what's the rush to not nominate before even investigating or trying to clear his name?  Not saying, "AHA! This disqualifies him!"  Just, hey, maybe slow down with rushing to nominate him in 6 days.
Very Stable Genius

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #885 on: September 14, 2018, 03:26:59 PM »
^ The guy will be there for life.  Is it a big deal to spend another 30 days making sure he is moral and ethical?

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #886 on: September 14, 2018, 03:28:02 PM »
https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/1040616900349386753

always good to joke about sexual assault allegations before you know all the details
Very Stable Genius

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6639
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #887 on: September 14, 2018, 03:40:53 PM »
^ The guy will be there for life.  Is it a big deal to spend another 30 days making sure he is moral and ethical?

The term of the Supreme Court begins the first Monday in October.

And I think most people who care have made up their minds whether they believe he's moral and ethical at this point.

Offline Foraker

  • Great American Tower 665'
  • ***
  • Posts: 731
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #888 on: September 14, 2018, 04:33:09 PM »
^ Because it is unsubstantiated allegations that did not need to be addressed in hearings. It was 35 years old and there was no other smoking gun. If this were a court, under the rules of evidence, such case would have been thrown out pretty quickly.

If so, why bother preparing statements from SIXTY-FIVE women?  Why not just say it never happened and be done with it?  Seems odd to go to the effort if it's nothing. 

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6639
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #889 on: September 14, 2018, 05:17:28 PM »
^ Because it is unsubstantiated allegations that did not need to be addressed in hearings. It was 35 years old and there was no other smoking gun. If this were a court, under the rules of evidence, such case would have been thrown out pretty quickly.

If so, why bother preparing statements from SIXTY-FIVE women?  Why not just say it never happened and be done with it?  Seems odd to go to the effort if it's nothing. 

Because if they did that, there would be people like DaS saying that we're just believing the man over the woman because we're sexist, regardless of any non-sex factors like age, anonymity, etc.

In fairness to Feinstein here, I think she handled it right.  She passed it off to law enforcement to make the final call on whether to pursue it, and then didn't press the matter further (noting that the ostensible reporting party apparently didn't want to, either, though that's not itself determinative).  She probably knew that a 35-year-old unsubstantiated accusation of misconduct from when both Kavanaugh and the other party were juveniles wouldn't actually get much traction.

Someone has already mentioned that there's no statute of limitations on sexual assault in the relevant jurisdiction (Maryland?) ... just out of curiosity, in case anyone knows, does that apply to acts committed by juveniles?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 05:21:08 PM by Gramarye »

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #890 on: September 14, 2018, 05:19:49 PM »
This whole thing is just a complete distraction and the Senate should be above this. This is the type of crap you would expect from the house.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #891 on: September 14, 2018, 07:18:46 PM »
This whole thing is just a complete distraction and the Senate should be above this. This is the type of crap you would expect from the house.

Lifetime Supreme Court positions are more important than investigating possible attempted rape allegation to conservatives.

"Family values."
Very Stable Genius

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #892 on: September 14, 2018, 09:20:43 PM »
This whole thing is just a complete distraction and the Senate should be above this. This is the type of crap you would expect from the house.

Lifetime Supreme Court positions are more important than investigating possible attempted rape allegation to conservatives.

"Family values."

canceling healthcare is too important

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #893 on: September 14, 2018, 10:51:55 PM »
Your right, the ends justify the means. It is more important to throw away basic values like the right to due process and right to confront your accuser in order to stop the guy from getting on the SC.

An anonymous letter certainly deserves the scrutiny and merit of a legitimate accuser too. Anonymous accusers claiming an allege crime from over 35 years ago are always credible. #howstupiddotheythinkweare

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #894 on: September 14, 2018, 11:02:46 PM »
You are arguing a strawman.  I am asking that they do some due diligence.  But GOP cares nothing about the anything.  Collude with Russia - no problem.  Lie about how many people died - no problem. 

Lie during confirmation - no problem

Just admit GOP only cares about achieving their goals,  The Republic be damned.  But you already did admit it .  The ends justify the means.  This is the modern conservative.


Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #895 on: September 14, 2018, 11:40:05 PM »
No strawman. Due diligence would be appropriate if
1) There was a name behind the letter and someone actually making an accusation, instead of anonymous.
2) There was more to it than an anonymous letter.

This does not even rise to the level of a smoking gun.

There is a core principle that a person making an acquisition be able to confront their accuser. We do not give credence to people who hide behind anonymity. If something is truly important and serious, generally it is held in our society that the accuser does not do so behind the veil of anonymity. Failure to come forward and place a name behind accusations has always been seen as cowardly at best and dishonorable and not credible at worst.  Anyone can anonymously make any allegation, it takes effort to put your name behind it. If someone is not even willing to go to that level, no further investigation is needed.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #896 on: September 14, 2018, 11:42:14 PM »
^ Like I said.  The ends justify the means.  That's why Trump is the face of the conservative movement and also why GOP congress doesn't care about destruction of the Republic. 

Offline jonoh81

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1477
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #897 on: September 15, 2018, 12:11:00 AM »
^ The guy will be there for life.  Is it a big deal to spend another 30 days making sure he is moral and ethical?

The term of the Supreme Court begins the first Monday in October.

And I think most people who care have made up their minds whether they believe he's moral and ethical at this point.

So if most people decide someone's guilty or not, that should decide the fate of an investigation?  Hey guys, everyone thinks he's innocent, so no need to bother establishing facts.  It's weird how the "law and order" people can't quite seem to muster more than a "meh" on yet another conservative with a shady, potentially legally problematic past. 

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #898 on: September 15, 2018, 12:17:22 AM »
Have someone come forward with a real complaint and not hide behind anonymity first and then you can discuss if it should be investigated. Until then it is embarrassing that the Senate would waste time of such a claim.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #899 on: September 15, 2018, 09:45:49 AM »
Have someone come forward with a real complaint and not hide behind anonymity first and then you can discuss if it should be investigated. Until then it is embarrassing that the Senate would waste time of such a claim.

19 real women came out against trump and many came out against Moore. Republicans don't care about this stuff.  They just pretend to care about morality, deficits, free trade, abortion, etc.