If government had not swollen to such a massive and repressive size, and intertwined itself into every facet of our lives, this and most other similar issues would not be much of a deal, nor garner significant interest. But because government has overtaken so much of our lives and thereby wields massive power, the struggle for power and the direction of government is nearly all-consuming.
Shame on us, as we march headlong into losing the republic within 40 years.
posted by O-TrapThere should never be a standard that requires proof of innocence full stop.
That's what is so disgusting. Flip the tables, and this unfolds in a mirror image of the current shit show. Just saw the senator from Hawaii go on a cherry-picking rant, conveniently omitting one of the strongest points against Ford - her BFF denies even knowing Kavanaugh, which is a much stronger refutation than denying (or not remembering) such a party occurred.
posted by O-TrapThere should never be a standard that requires proof of innocence full stop.
Because of rampant white male privilege, fairness not only requires but necessitates proof of innocence!
posted by gutJudge just agreed to cooperate with law enforcement, provided his privacy can be guaranteed. So that probably seals the fact an investigation will be opened.
I think Repubs should very narrowly limit the scope and timing of the timeline. It cannot be an open-ended "turn over every stone" witch hunt. You interview these people. You attempt to verify X,Y and Z claims. You have 5 days. I imagine a dozen investigators can cover a lot of ground in 5 days, pretty much strictly interviews (most of which will take about 5 minutes).
The question is, how long should other accusers be given to come forward? Seems like Ford came out just 2 weeks ago, and a few others in the last few days. So I'm not sure you can summarily dismiss any new allegations because it's a tough thing to come forward and that's not a lot of time to reach a decision and work with counsel to come out.
As I understand it, the vote was going to happen on Tuesday, and the agreement was for a delay in the vote of a week. Not "about a week", not "a week unless something else is uncovered". The vote should take place on the 9th.
posted by gutBecause of rampant white male privilege, fairness not only requires but necessitates proof of innocence!
Here's the thing about that:
I even acknowledge the existence of privilege. I see it pretty regularly, almost always in my favor.
However, the courts are supposed to be places in which the scales are balanced already and any outside privilege doesn't come into play.
Republicans tend to deny that this isn't already the case, which is problematic, because numbers tell us that those elements of the judicial system which are subjective still carry with them some unequal perspective.
However, the Democrats are just as bad, because while they acknowledge the unbalanced scales, they so often seem to seek the courts to act as a vehicle to counterbalance to external inequalities, consciously or otherwise, so they effectively push for what you're suggesting. If privilege exists outside the courts, and it tips the scales one way, their responses so often seem to indicate that they want the scales to tip the opposite way within the judicial system. Because if you get dicked over outside the courts, and I get dicked over inside the courts, somehow that makes everything better.
Aaaand the committee gave in to Flake and the other 2 demands and are requesting the 7th background check of Kavanaugh, to not last more than one week (yea right). Let the shit show continue another week and a half at least. If they find no further evidence, what do the Dems say then? I realize that is a hypothetical, but say they find something, Kavanugh is withdrawn. If not, are we really going to assume he easily gets passed through? Chris Murphy already came out and said he doesn't care what the FBI says, he's out.
posted by iclfan2Chris Murphy already came out and said he doesn't care what the FBI says, he's out.
So my suggestion to see if houses of any of the 5 mention matched her description......what if houses in that area share 3-4 common blueprints, or if a floorplan is a "possible" match - can you imagine how polarizing that would be as key evidence for BOTH sides of the debate?
Which reminds me - didn't Kavanaugh say none of them lived in that area? She wasn't properly cross-examined, and these are critical questions that might raise serious questions about her recollection. So a house she doesn't remember, that none of the partiers lived in?!?
Possible it was someone's aunt/uncle, cousin or even a friend's house that was out-of-town. But then the "unlikely" starts piling up. And, BTW, the FBI needs to verify the therapist notes actually exist (I assume they do, otherwise that's a giant oversight).
Trump has authorized the investigation by the FBI. Calls for limited scope (specifics not reported) and no more than a week in duration.
posted by QuakerOats
If government had not swollen to such a massive and repressive size, and intertwined itself into every facet of our lives, this and most other similar issues would not be much of a deal, nor garner significant interest. But because government has overtaken so much of our lives and thereby wields massive power, the struggle for power and the direction of government is nearly all-consuming.
Shame on us, as we march headlong into losing the republic within 40 years.
Have a nice weekend Chicken Little.
posted by like_thatI am speaking of liberals in general. This isn't new, they have always mocked conservatives for being up tight, boring, etc. It's hilarious now they are concerned about a guy who drank beer when he was 18-22 years old in college LOL. Mind you, these are the same people (including you apparently) who jerked off to Obama when he admitted to smoking weed in college. And I have nothing against weed. Based on this idiotic logic, you should be fired from your current job. C'mon bro.
Do you see that there is a difference between lampooning Ted Cruz for being a square as a politician trying to connect with voters and an appointed Judge? Ted Cruz' squareness is a feature as a judge and a bug as a Senator.
Also, as to you comparing me to Kavanaugh. Being a Supreme Court Justice is different than being an every day corporate lawyer, yes? In any case we ARE held to codes of professional conduct! Lawyers routinely get suspended for substance abuse matters.
Also - to your point, Supreme Court justices should be held to,even,higher standards than elected officials because they can't be voted out.
In any case as this is beside the point as said I really don't care that he partied hard or drinks. I'd rather have a choir boy like Gorsuch but the point to me is that he is that he clearly lied about stupid little shit.
And, that is why it is good to have the FBI question some of these witnesses willing to talk to the news but were ignored by the judiciary committee.
And tbh I,have no idea why you are talking about Obama here lol.
posted by fish8253-47. Manchin and Donnelly are in the Aye column.
You have a much better prediction record than me as of late but I will now predict that with the week of FBI investigation that Kavanaugh goes down. The report will be bland but provide enough info to allow the big four to say he perjured himself at the hearing.
Serious question, why do the Dems think the Repubs can’t get Barrett through before the mid terms if Kav fails? She just went through a confirmation process so it should be pretty easy, no? I haven’t seen why but everything I read was if it got to October the Dems were good until midterms.
posted by queencitybuckeyeI guarantee this is at least 50% true. Smarter, 100%.
* than I
Indeed. Maybe when I am your age trolling men half my age on the internetz in a similar fashion I will replicate your wisdom.
posted by O-TrapYep. I recall Pubs doing that during Hil's deposition, in fact.
posted by like_thatLooks like Flake has confirmed he will vote yes. I'd figured he would vote no as a fuck you to Trump.
Thing is, Kavanaugh seems like he's less hostile toward the traditional Republican in Washington, so I can believe they hop on board with him.
posted by BoatShoesWhen have LiBruLz made fun of Supreme Court Justices for being uptight.
Yeah, I've gotta disagree with that one, too.
Maybe I am missing it but I don't see making fun of uptightness in the vid? But I will concede and say I am wrong anyway.
posted by iclfan2Serious question, why do the Dems think the Repubs can’t get Barrett through before the mid terms if Kav fails? She just went through a confirmation process so it should be pretty easy, no? I haven’t seen why but everything I read was if it got to October the Dems were good until midterms.
Not sure. I think the average is 65-70 days to confirm, and with the holidays and other planned recesses there's not enough time before the new Senate is seated beginning of January? I'm sure the Repubs would and could ram it through.
But do the Dems really want to make this election about picking a SCOTUS again? If they did take the Senate, MUCHO crying about "elections have consequences" and demanding confirmation wait until after January.
If you think about it, something profoundly wrong about SCOTUS appointments influencing elections for POTUS and Congress.
posted by BoatShoesMaybe I am missing it but I don't see making fun of uptightness in the vid? But I will concede and say I am wrong anyway.
No, no. You weren't. I was unclear and all over the place in that short post. My apologies.
Liberals in my experience haven't busted anyone's chops for being uptight, and they certainly shouldn't be getting on his case for liking beer either, given RBG's almost endearing little booze-induced nap during the SOTU.
posted by gutNot sure. I think the average is 65-70 days to confirm, and with the holidays and other planned recesses there's not enough time before the new Senate is seated beginning of January? I'm sure the Repubs would and could ram it through.
Yea, I guess I imagine they just ram it through if need be. A seat vacant for 2 years would be unheard of.
I sure hope these FBI investigators dont report to the FBI admin. They aren't real credible at this point.
posted by BoatShoes
Also - to your point, Supreme Court justices should be held to,even,higher standards than elected officials because they can't be voted out.
They can be voted out by the same branch of Congress that voted them in. The house can issue articles of impeachment and the Senate votes.
posted by gutIf you think about it, something profoundly wrong about SCOTUS appointments influencing elections for POTUS and Congress.
If the other two coequal branches of the federal government would not have allowed the judicial branch to grab more power than I believe the founders intended we would no have this problem.
