Roe v. Wade and the new SC Justice

[Lou]

13 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Lol are you kidding ? They abdicated their constitutional duty and high jacked a Supreme Court pick.  I get your politics Lou, but you can’t be serious.  

no, I wasn't kidding. I've stated this countless times on this board, but I'll do so again.

i am not a fan of politics/politicians. I don't follow either of them (haven't for a long time), mainly because I have so many other responsibilities and interests to concern myself with what a group of narcissistic buffoons do on a daily basis. therefore, i get my political updates here. if someone includes a link that I may find interesting, I may check it out.

I asked the question in hope of getting a specific answer, i.e. what exactly they did that would be evidence of this occurring. 

[fan_since79]

If this woman doesn't appear before the committee, as Sen. Flake is apparently saying is necessary for him to vote on the nomination, it will be dead in the water. He could abstain and you would have a tie. The nomination would be put on hold until after the November midterms. The court would open its term in October with eight members.

If the woman testifies and describes in salacious detail what she alleges happened 35 years ago, then who the hell knows how the nomination will go. I can just imagine her breaking down in sobs as some Republican like Cruz zeroes in and attacks her story. The optics would be a disaster. 

I was going to say the Democrats should be careful here, but the irony is that a Republican could really mess this thing up.

 

 

[Blarg]

You'll get that answer about the time Ocasio Cortez comes up with her $40 trillion dollars funding plan.  

[Spirit]

35 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ugly and mean appointment hearings are well within the normal scope of our partisan politics.  If Kavanaugh didn’t want the scrutiny he should have declined the nomination.  This man has been in politics a long time.

 

Having ugly and mean hearings does not include being (potentially) falsely accused for sexual assault.  I'm surprised you're not seeing the difference there.

 

[fan_since79]

12 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Nobody thinks they’re going to stop Kavanaugh from being appointed Blarg. 

Jeff Flake is having second thoughts and wants to hear from the accuser in public under oath. 

He may not vote with the other Republicans to move this nomination forward otherwise. It has to get out of committee before the full Senate votes.

How did we go from this woman not wanting to be involved to this mess in a couple of days?

[Lou]

2 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

Jeff Flake is having second thoughts and wants to hear from the accuser in public under oath. 

He may not vote with the other Republicans to move this nomination forward otherwise. It has to get out of committee before the full Senate votes.

How did we go from this woman not wanting to be involved to this mess in a couple of days?

I'm not $ure 

[RallyMo]

On 9/15/2018 at 12:28 AM, Blarg said:

Well, for one, there really is no her to believe. The allegations are from an unverified mystery source that conveniently refuses to come forward or press charges. Facing ones accuser is one of the basics of American law. There is no one there, ergo there is nothing to discuss. 

So much for that. Now there's a her for some of y'all to disbelieve.

[fan_since79]

6 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

So much for that. Now there's a her for some of y'all to disbelieve.

...and they're probably prepping her for her appearance before the committee and the nation. She has a name now, and she'll be telling her story (lie?) before a rapt audience soon enough. 

This thing will get exponentially more ugly by the end of the week.

 

[Lou]

4 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

...and they're probably prepping her for her appearance before the committee and the nation. She has a name now, and she'll be telling her story (lie?) before a rapt audience soon enough. 

This thing will get exponentially more ugly by the end of the week.

 

I can't wait to see her future earnings ensemble 

[fan_since79]

There's a certain "witch hunt" aspect brewing here.

Gonna be ugly as all get out.

#metoomorphingintochaos

#metooinquisition

Edited September 17, 2018 by fan_since79

[RallyMo]

5 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

...and they're probably prepping her for her appearance before the committee and the nation. She has a name now, and she'll be telling her story (lie?) before a rapt audience soon enough. 

This thing will get exponentially more ugly by the end of the week.

 

So you don't believe her now that there's a her. That's fine.

[fan_since79]

4 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

So you don't believe her now that there's a her. That's fine.

I didn't say that, but it's convenient that it will be "she said, he denies" about something that happened (or not) 35 years ago when they were teenagers.

Corroboration would be nice, don't you think?

I put a question mark on "lie" because that's always at issue when it's "she said, he denies", if other evidence or corroborating testimony is lacking. Especially about something from 35 years ago.

I'm wondering if she ever told anybody about this before the present. He's been a federal judge for quite some time now. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by fan_since79

[fan_since79]

Just to add to my post, if others come forward with similar, and credible stories, then he's gone. I'm fine with that, of course. If even one comes forward, that changes the story.

This thing? My first reaction is skeptical, considering the political circumstances surrounding this nomination, at this crucial point in time.

And somebody tell me how she got from not wanting a damn thing to do with this to possibly testifying now. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by fan_since79

[Rico]

7 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

I didn't say that, but it's convenient that it will be "she said, he denies" about something that happened (or not) 35 years ago when they were teenagers.

Corroboration would be nice, don't you think?

I put a question mark on "lie" because that's always at issue when it's "she said, he denies", if other evidence or corroborating testimony is lacking. Especially about something from 35 years ago.

I'm wondering if she ever told anybody about this before the present. He's been a federal judge for quite some time now. 

According to the report I saw she told two therapists and her husband about the incident years ago.

[fan_since79]

1 minute ago, Rico said:

According to the report I saw she told two therapists and her husband about the incident years ago.

Okay, that's interesting.

I think Amy Coney Barrett should put any Fall vacation plans on hold.

[Lou]

What was a 13-year old girl doing at a party like that?

Discuss.

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, Geoff said:

 

Having ugly and mean hearings does not include being (potentially) falsely accused for sexual assault.  I'm surprised you're not seeing the difference there.

 

I said I was sorry if it turned out to be false.  If that’s the case then Kavanaugh would be fully justifed in pursuing civil suit against both Feinstein and the woman.  I would support his pursuit of that litigation and I would hope that he makes them pay steep price.  As far as I know she hasn’t filed a false police report, so I’m not sure if her being a liar would be criminal.  If it is that would be fine with me as well. 

But again, there no reason to believe she’s lying. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[RallyMo]

12 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

And somebody tell me how she got from not wanting a damn thing to do with this to possibly testifying now. 

Maybe it has something to do with a cacophony of "I won't believe a faceless accuser" comments. The world is a complicated place.

[Spirit]

7 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

IBut again, there no reason to believe she’s lying. 

 

Really?  You can't come up with even one reason why she might be lying?  Not one?

 

 

[Lou]

How will she prove that it occurred?

[Spirit]

7 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

Maybe it has something to do with a cacophony of "I won't believe a faceless accuser" comments. The world is a complicated place.

 

So, book deal.

 

[Lou]

Just now, Geoff said:

 

Really?  You can't come up with even one reason why she might be lying?  Not one?

 

Nope, not a one . . . 

[fan_since79]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

How will she prove that it occurred?

Well, if she has somebody else who was there and willing to confirm her story publicly, that's a game changer.

But 35+ plus years is an awful long time ago, plus they were both high schoolers. 

[UndertheHalo]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

no, I wasn't kidding. I've stated this countless times on this board, but I'll do so again.

i am not a fan of politics/politicians. I don't follow either of them (haven't for a long time), mainly because I have so many other responsibilities and interests to concern myself with what a group of narcissistic buffoons do on a daily basis. therefore, i get my political updates here. if someone includes a link that I may find interesting, I may check it out.

I asked the question in hope of getting a specific answer, i.e. what exactly they did that would be evidence of this occurring. 

The president chooses Supreme Court nominees.  There’s no suspension of that right  because an election is a year away.  By denying Garland a hearing the senate GOP, led by that piece of shit Mitch McConnell abdicated their constitutional duty.  They had no good reason to not give him hearings.  It was unprecedented and imo justly described as a fundemental change of institutional norms.  You can go back to the 19th century and find a handful of instances when a nominee was denied hearings. But in those cases there were valid character reasons to deny them.  In any case it was unquestionably extremely abnormal.  

If that’s not specific enough for you then sorry.  Here are some links if you care to read through them. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-merrick-garland.html

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/senate_hold_on_merrick_garland_nomination_is_unprecedented_almost

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/history-stolen-supreme-court-seats-180962589/

Edited September 17, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[RallyMo]

Here's the whole story from the WP:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.636441b06866