Kansas Crimson

Well...I've said it before and I'll have to say it again...and again...and again: this is how got Trump. This is how we'll get more Trump. And this is how we'll wind up looking back at Trump wistfully, recalling his comparative moderation.

You have U.S. Senators suggesting that conservatives don't deserve the presumption of innocence and that the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence. But it's all good...cuz Trump.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:24 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:02 pm When it comes to not playing nice about scotus picks, GOP set the precedent.

to shrug off the Garland treatment then cry foul about this is, well, lulz?

IIRC, nobody called Garland a drunk or a rapist. They just said "No, thanks." Not even close to the same thing.

On a personal level this is worse (if the accusations are false). But bigger picture the Garland fiasco was far worse. At least Kavanaugh is being given a chance.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:36 pm Well...I've said it before and I'll have to say it again...and again...and again: this is how got Trump. This is how we'll get more Trump. And this is how we'll wind up looking back at Trump wistfully, recalling his comparative moderation.

You have U.S. Senators suggesting that conservatives don't deserve the presumption of innocence and that the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence. But it's all good...cuz Trump.

I can never hear enough of that story, tell me one more time how everyone who didn't vote for Trump is responsible for "Trump".

And remind me - didn’t the gop go nuclear with Gorsuch, thus undermining the 60 vote bipartisanship that the founding fathers intended for scotus appointees?

japhy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:44 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:36 pm Well...I've said it before and I'll have to say it again...and again...and again: this is how got Trump. This is how we'll get more Trump. And this is how we'll wind up looking back at Trump wistfully, recalling his comparative moderation.

You have U.S. Senators suggesting that conservatives don't deserve the presumption of innocence and that the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence. But it's all good...cuz Trump.

I can never hear enough of that story, tell me one more time how everyone who didn't vote for Trump is responsible for "Trump".

Not everyone. Just Fenton.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:48 pm And remind me - didn’t the gop go nuclear with Gorsuch, thus undermining the 60 vote bipartisanship that the founding fathers intended for scotus appointees?

lulz

Dear Republicans: We din't meen fer you to have the nukular opshun. Just us (get it?).

YT, Hairy Reed and Ousie


Also, there were only 26 Senators in Founders' Senate.

ohhh so it’s MY fault the gop rammed their pick through.

My bad you guys, I knew I shouldn’ta!

Hey. You went nukular. I'm sorry.

Also, conservatives more generally have behaved as if the guy who won the election should get to appoint the nominees he wants (Garland and the "lame duck" excuse, excepted). Neither Clinton's nor Obama's nominees ever faced the kind of partisan rancor Alito and and Trump's two have faced.

This is a byproduct of the Left's ridiculous but understandable obsession with the courts as the legislators of last resort. Or, more accurately, it's belief that abortion isn't just a medical procedure but part of an "intergenerational covenant."

But hey. If that means that due process is turned on its head, so be it. Cuz...Trump.

Presumption of innocence? Due process?

You know this isn't a trial, right? You know that "not getting put onto the Supreme Court" and "getting thrown in jail" are different things, right?

Of course you do - of course you know better.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:36 pm Well...I've said it before and I'll have to say it again...and again...and again: this is how got Trump. This is how we'll get more Trump. And this is how we'll wind up looking back at Trump wistfully, recalling his comparative moderation.

You have U.S. Senators suggesting that conservatives don't deserve the presumption of innocence and that the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence. But it's all good...cuz Trump.

Very true. Keep poking the bear and you get more angry bear.

That’s a pretty lame duck excuse, indeed. After the gop pulled the Garland bullshit you really think dems we’re gonna play nice?

And after the nukular appointment, why would the fight for the next one get any nicer?

And you really tryna say it’s liberals who try to make abortion more than just a medical procedure?

It’s been a constitutional right and settled law for decades. But please do tell how it’s liberals who held their nose and voted in Trump on the hope he could swing the court otherwise?

If you don't think that Dr. Ford's memories from high school should carry any weight, then you haven't been paying any attention to the MeToo movement.
In my book, it is a completely plausible story.

I'm 49 years old, so similar to Dr. Ford in age.
* Stuff from several decades ago comes up in a recent therapy session? Yep. Check. MeToo!
* Been sexually assaulted in college and never told anyone about it? Yep. Check. MeToo! (well, until just now)

For people to so brazenly pronounce Dr. Ford's claims as categorically impossible is shocking to me. If you missed the lesson during the heyday of the MeToo movement, open your eyes.

Sexual assault is not ok (even if people are drunk; even if people are teens). If any of you were in college right now, you would know this from the mandatory training.

Lawyers and Judges are held to a higher bar than anyone else.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:19 pm Presumption of innocence? Due process?

You know this isn't a trial, right? You know that "not getting put onto the Supreme Court" and "getting thrown in jail" are different things, right?

Of course you do - of course you know better.

These are fundamental core principles of our society, irrespective of the prospective punishment. It's the same reason that Article I bans bills of attainder and campus Title IX tribunals are consistently overturned.

As a lawyer, I understand why you presume the terms' application applies only to criminal proceedings, but that too is false. It's the same instinct that prompts the "but it's not the government doing it!" arguments whenever free of speech is mentioned. As a society, we value these principles whether or not they apply in a specific legalistic setting, specifically because they preserve the order of the society we have desired for nearly 500 years (dating back to British common law). The fact that there is no specific legal proscription against Blumenthal and the other dregs of society from insisting that the accused must prove his innocence doesn't mean that it's behavior we wish to encourage or to see practiced and endorsed by political leaders.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:22 pm That’s a pretty lame duck excuse, indeed. After the gop pulled the Garland bullshit you really think dems we’re gonna play nice?

And after the nukular appointment, why would the fight for the next one get any nicer?

And you really tryna say it’s liberals who try to make abortion more than just a medical procedure?

It’s been a constitutional right and settled law for decades. But please do tell how it’s liberals who held their nose and voted in Trump on the hope he could swing the court otherwise?

Thank you for finally being honest and conceding that this is not about justice at all, but about retribution.

DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:24 pm If you don't think that Dr. Ford's memories from high school should carry any weight, then you haven't been paying any attention to the MeToo movement.
In my book, it is a completely plausible story.

I'm 49 years old, so similar to Dr. Ford in age.
* Stuff from several decades ago comes up in a recent therapy session? Yep. Check. MeToo!
* Been sexually assaulted in college and never told anyone about it? Yep. Check. MeToo! (well, until just now)

For people to so brazenly pronounce Dr. Ford's claims as categorically impossible is shocking to me. If you missed the lesson during the heyday of the MeToo movement, open your eyes.

Sexual assault is not ok (even if people are drunk; even if people are teens). If any of you were in college right now, you would know this from the mandatory training.

Lawyers and Judges are held to a higher bar than anyone else.

Has anyone here said that Dr. Ford's memories are invalid or shouldn't carry weight?

Maybe the Count and Psych have, but that's not a reasonable position.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:22 pm

And you really tryna say it’s liberals who try to make abortion more than just a medical procedure?

It’s been a constitutional right and settled law for decades.

You get that the second sentence here contradicts the first, right?

DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:24 pm If you don't think that Dr. Ford's memories from high school should carry any weight, then you haven't been paying any attention to the MeToo movement.
In my book, it is a completely plausible story.

I'm 49 years old, so similar to Dr. Ford in age.
* Stuff from several decades ago comes up in a recent therapy session? Yep. Check. MeToo!
* Been sexually assaulted in college and never told anyone about it? Yep. Check. MeToo! (well, until just now)

For people to so brazenly pronounce Dr. Ford's claims as categorically impossible is shocking to me. If you missed the lesson during the heyday of the MeToo movement, open your eyes.

Sexual assault is not ok (even if people are drunk; even if people are teens). If any of you were in college right now, you would know this from the mandatory training.

Lawyers and Judges are held to a higher bar than anyone else.

The MeToo movement is doing what all movements do. It started off as relevant and appropriate, but it has quickly spiraled out of control and will eventually kill itself off. Outrage has a short half life.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:37 pm

DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:24 pm If you don't think that Dr. Ford's memories from high school should carry any weight, then you haven't been paying any attention to the MeToo movement.
In my book, it is a completely plausible story.

I'm 49 years old, so similar to Dr. Ford in age.
* Stuff from several decades ago comes up in a recent therapy session? Yep. Check. MeToo!
* Been sexually assaulted in college and never told anyone about it? Yep. Check. MeToo! (well, until just now)

For people to so brazenly pronounce Dr. Ford's claims as categorically impossible is shocking to me. If you missed the lesson during the heyday of the MeToo movement, open your eyes.

Sexual assault is not ok (even if people are drunk; even if people are teens). If any of you were in college right now, you would know this from the mandatory training.

Lawyers and Judges are held to a higher bar than anyone else.

Has anyone here said that Dr. Ford's memories are invalid or shouldn't carry weight?

Maybe the Count and Psych have, but that's not a reasonable position.

They have no credible evidence to back them up. They smack of ulterior motive. They are invalid.

DC didn’t come out and say Ford’s memories were “invalid or shouldn’t carry weight,” but sure did cast a lot of doubt, and also imply she was the one who should be investigated?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:51 am Like I said, I'm up for an investigation. It just has to investigate the right people.

Up until last week, Ms. Ramirez couldn't even remember for sure if Brett Kavanaugh was at a party where something clearly traumatic happened to her. She admits to being blackout drunk and not remembering much else about the night in question. I'm not sure how one goes about investigating any of this, since -- as with Dr. Ford -- all of the witnesses named have denied any knowledge of events (in Ford's case, under penalty of perjury) and since the only corroborating "evidence" comes from an unnamed source who heard something sometime about someone. But if you have any ideas, you can certainly suggest them.

Otherwise this is patent partisan hackery.

This is an interesting thread in light of Cosby verdict and sentence.