Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice Kennedy Retiring

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    “It is better that 10 guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer.”

    It is on the accuser to demonstrate guilt.
    Livin the dream

    Comment


    • jdshock
      jdshock commented
      Editing a comment
      That calculation UNDOUBTEDLY works for the criminal system. I'm not convinced it makes as much sense when we're talking about lifetime appointments. It's not like he loses any liberty if he keeps his current lifetime appointment.

  • #77
    I do find it incredibly frustrating that this is the one thing that has gained any traction, when he lied to Congress. And we apparently don't care that he wouldn't recuse himself if the Court had to determine the constitutionality of the Russia investigation. And we have a decent idea of how he would rule in such a case (in favor of Trump).

    Comment


    • #78
      Originally posted by jdshock View Post
      I do find it incredibly frustrating that this is the one thing that has gained any traction, when he lied to Congress. And we apparently don't care that he wouldn't recuse himself if the Court had to determine the constitutionality of the Russia investigation. And we have a decent idea of how he would rule in such a case (in favor of Trump).
      The only thing I’ve seen on the “lied to congress” was an opinion piece from a democrat in a left wing publication. Is there anything else that might convince Republican or centrist?
      Livin the dream

      Comment


      • wufan
        wufan commented
        Editing a comment
        The salon article attributes the info to fair.org which posts on their website the following:

        “We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. We expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.”

        How about NPR?

        Here’s one from a right wing bias site:

        https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ally-baseless/

      • wufan
        wufan commented
        Editing a comment
        Okay, I checked a bunch of hyperlinks from the salon article, and they don’t call out Kavenaugh..,and the most centrist source they use is the NYT. Come on!

      • ShockCrazy
        ShockCrazy commented
        Editing a comment
        wufan I honestly don't know what sources you are looking for. His testimony that is being paraphrased is public record. He repeatedly denied knowing the emails were stolen if he got them but also said he never got them. Leahy's document dump clearly show that to be false. And to me at least for what the SCOTUS should stand for, being misleading alone let alone perjury(which is debatable but certainly within possibility, that rightwing article is hilarious "not involved doesn't mean not involved at all" wut?)

    • #79
      I imagine that most people this this is all bullshit, but do not want to appear to be pro-rape

      Comment


      • #80
        https://www.mediaite.com/online/bret...users-parents/

        Comment


        • #81
          Originally posted by pinstripers View Post
          I imagine that most people this this is all bullshit, but do not want to appear to be pro-rape
          This 10,0000x over. Common sense says, dude was in high school, dude learned how to tap a keg, dude may have been horny and got carried away. And we can't even prove he did anything with this one, single accusation. Not two, not five, not fifty women. There is no laundry list of women lining up to say he did squat, no track record. Nothing to indicate that this is a pattern of behavior.

          Yet people like jd line up to burn the guy over something that may not have ever happened, possibly one time, decades ago, no penetration even if he did it. Statutes of limitations exist for this reason. Except.... If you don't support burning Kavenaugh at the stake, you are pro rape, jd already has played that card.

          Again, faux outrage.
          There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.

          Comment


          • #82
            Originally posted by MoValley John View Post
            Yet people like jd line up to burn the guy over something that may not have ever happened, possibly one time, decades ago, no penetration even if he did it. Statutes of limitations exist for this reason. Except.... If you don't support burning Kavenaugh at the stake, you are pro rape, jd already has played that card.
            It just seems like more and more often I feel like I'm in this bizarro world where I must just be speaking gibberish.

            This post is infuriating. It's dishonest and it exemplifies why the two sides can't have simple discussions back and forth. It is asinine. When did I play the "pro-rape card?" Geez, man... I have EXPLICITLY said I think the other issues should be bigger deals.

            Wow... between you and shockm and 89, I think I've gotta be done on here for a while.

            Comment


            • #83
              https://www.newsweek.com/juanita-bro...on-rape-900485

              Here is another time when Jd, Crazy, and ALL Dems agreed with the charges because we should ALWAYS believe the woman.

              Comment


              • #84
                jdshock Don’t go! I need to see your progressive views on things. 50% of the time we are just going to see things differently. 30% of the time you are going to share something that I hadn’t considered. Sure, we will still disagree on that, but it’s new and it helps to shape my opinion. 10% of the time we will find common ground, but 10% of the time you change my mind, at least to a degree.

                Your ideas are important, even if it feels like you’re talking to a brick wall.
                Livin the dream

                Comment


                • Shockm
                  Shockm commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Wu fan is like many Republicans. You may try to see things from the other side but they never do. All they do is Attack, Attack, Attack. We are all the dregs of society, racist, and deplorables. They just call the other side names.

                • C0|dB|00ded
                  C0|dB|00ded commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Yeah, don't go JD. One day we will all hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah again. You need to stay friendly with a few Republicans. Who else is gonna protect you when the inner cities start to rise up from all this Demo fomenting. We've got all the guns and I do mean ALL.


                  T


                  ...

                • wufan
                  wufan commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Leftists and rightest both acknowledge the same problems, however they view them in different frameworks, and so they come up with different solutions. That doesn’t mean that everyone is dismissing arguments, it’s just that the solutions are nonsensical. Yes, I want to hear the alternative view, but that doesn’t mean it makes any sense to me at all.

                  Remember too that a political compass test checks economic and social liberalism and authoritarianism. There are four quadrants of thought, and just because someone is left, doesn’t mean they are liberal, and just because someone is right, it doesn’t mean they are authoritarians. There are many more right and left authoritarians right now than there was 25 years ago. I think that is really what’s separating us. Authoritarians just want what’s good for everyone, but it comes at a cost and it means they aren’t interested in other frameworks. I’m a right leaning libertarian (meaning, do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t hurt someone, and economic freedom is the best way to obtain that). That has its problems too, but it means that I’m interested in other perspectives so long as it allows freedom of choice. People don’t chose their political compass, it’s built in by some combination of genetics and social construct. Differences aren’t due to ignorance or malice, they just are.

              • #85
                https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-women...232756783.html

                Comment


                • shockfan89_
                  shockfan89_ commented
                  Editing a comment
                  NM

              • #86
                Originally posted by jdshock View Post

                It just seems like more and more often I feel like I'm in this bizarro world where I must just be speaking gibberish.

                This post is infuriating. It's dishonest and it exemplifies why the two sides can't have simple discussions back and forth. It is asinine. When did I play the "pro-rape card?" Geez, man... I have EXPLICITLY said I think the other issues should be bigger deals.

                Wow... between you and shockm and 89, I think I've gotta be done on here for a while.
                When you replied to cold regarding people getting c’s and then went into the drivel that this alleged attack, if it happened, should prevent him from being a Supreme Court Justice. That is when you played the rape card, that is when you went all in, party line, one lapse in judgement, while still a youth, should prevent him from being a Supreme Court Justice. This whole thing is silly. Assuming this happened, there is nothing to prove. Assuming this happened, it shouldn't follow him for even a decade, much less, decades. Assuming this happened, there is ZERO indication that this was how he behaved with any other females. EVER. We haven't seen anything to indicate that this one alleged incident has any reflection on who he is.

                The whole 20 years later screaming rape is what is bizarre. I don't condone rape, I find it beyond disgusting, but saying anything other than to disqualify makes me complicit in rape. That is what's bizarre.
                There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.

                Comment


                • C0|dB|00ded
                  C0|dB|00ded commented
                  Editing a comment
                  People need to kind of sharpen up their laymen criminal vernacular. The only term that should be connected with this investigation is sexual assault. Attempted rape denotes someone fully intent on having intercourse with an EXTREMELY unwilling party but being thwarted by the victim itself or an outside actor. Attempted rape would involve a person violently trying to tear clothing off a victim; there would be injury, flesh under the fingernails, etc. A horny high-schooler jumping on a girl on a bed he had been flirting with who fairly adamantly didn't want to be thrown on a bed and groped would be sexual assault. If after hearing her clear demand to stop, he slaps her upside the head and starts yanking her pants off while whipping out his thing... well, then you've moved into attempted rape territory. The victim in this instance would have reason to fear for her safety. See the difference? Don't argue with me lawyers...

                  If this happened, I HIGHLY doubt the "victim" was anything more than embarrassed or pissed off. Fear never entered the room. Fear is for the guy at the shopping mall who drags you into his panel van.

                  Disclaimer: the preceding post is littered with CB's conjecture.


                  T


                  ...

                • ShockCrazy
                  ShockCrazy commented
                  Editing a comment
                  No that's not what I meant. I did not say prison. I said consequences. Meaning no Supreme Court ever. That's a consequence.

                • shockfan89_
                  shockfan89_ commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Okay, I actually agree with ShockCrazy on this. If he raped her as a 16 or 17 year old, I agree he shouldn't be SCOTUS, but that isn't what we are talking about. Not even remotely close. We are talking about someone without a shred of proof (other than what you and I could obtain off of the internet, where he went to high school, where he lived at the time, who his best friend was at the time). This is a baseless allegation, this isn't rape or attempted rape.

                  You context that with a democratic party that opposed the nominee BEFORE it was announced and all rallied for no votes. Then add in this has been known about for months and is leaked the week before the vote. I thought she wanted to remain anonymous, but during this time of anonymity she hired the most well-known attack attorney for liberals, and took a lie detector test? I'm sorry, but that right there is enough for me to say there isn't enough proof to delay the vote. Now her attorney said she will testify but not on Monday? Sorry, Monday is the day. Either you testify Monday or we assume it is all lies and vote Tuesday at 9am!

                  This is nothing more than an extremely disingenuous plot to delay a SCOTUS nominee the democrats don't want Trump to appoint. There is absolutely zero criminal liability here and zero evidence to prove it occurred! Besides, we now have two women, plus his wife, so three, that dated Kavanaugh and knew him for decades. THOSE WOMEN MUST BE BELIEVED. I am just waiting for another liberal activist to make up another allegation that can't be proven or disproven. It will likely come over the weekend so liberals can say "OMG, now there are two! We must delay this confirmation longer to see if more will have the courage to come forward!" Just wait, they know this attempt has failed because it is one woman's word over a 35 year record of integrity, so now they have to keep the narrative going, just like the Russian collusion lie.
                  Last edited by shockfan89_; September 19th, 2018, 08:45 AM.

              • #87
                Originally posted by MoValley John View Post

                When you replied to cold regarding people getting c’s and then went into the drivel that this alleged attack, if it happened, should prevent him from being a Supreme Court Justice. That is when you played the rape card, that is when you went all in, party line, one lapse in judgement, while still a youth, should prevent him from being a Supreme Court Justice. This whole thing is silly. Assuming this happened, there is nothing to prove. Assuming this happened, it shouldn't follow him for even a decade, much less, decades. Assuming this happened, there is ZERO indication that this was how he behaved with any other females. EVER. We haven't seen anything to indicate that this one alleged incident has any reflection on who he is.

                The whole 20 years later screaming rape is what is bizarre. I don't condone rape, I find it beyond disgusting, but saying anything other than to disqualify makes me complicit in rape. That is what's bizarre.
                Groping would be more accurate than rape. It's a matter of "sexual abuse", according to Washington D.C. law. And since there was no sexual act, it's a matter of 3rd degree sexual abuse (she claims he grabbed her crotch over her clothes).

                Committed by a minor.

                With a statute of limitations of 10 years.

                And it wasn't 20 years ago. It was 36 years ago.

                That's a long damn time ago. 3.6x the statute of limitations.
                Kung Wu say: "If Chuck Norris had a coach, his name would be Gregg Marshall."

                Comment


                • WuDrWu
                  WuDrWu commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Are you sure it's not statue of limitations?

                • Kung Wu
                  Kung Wu commented
                  Editing a comment
                  hahaha, it's becoming one!

              • #88
                There’s literally no qualifications for a SCOTUS required, yet you are prescribing a lifetime ban for a misdemeanor committed by a minor (if true). Had he been convicted at the time, it wouldn’t even be a matter of public record because the conviction would be sealed.

                What other rights would you remove from a minor convicted of sexual assault? Is it just no SCOTUS position?

                I’m all for a legal system that convicts with evidence and provides the minimum necessary punishment so as to make rehabilitation likely. After that, full rights and priveledfes should be restored. Perhaps I would still ban ownership of firearms for violent offenders.
                Livin the dream

                Comment


                • ShockCrazy
                  ShockCrazy commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Serving on the SCOTUS is NOT a right. Rights are things granted universally to everyone. And l last I checked they never consulted me on a case nor do I see it granted to me in the Constitution. Serving on Supreme Court is an honor and a priveledge reserved for the best and most honorable legal minds. Why are we ok with degrading the office? You really expect me to believe we can't find 9 qualified people who haven't committed serious crimes?(I don't care if our screwed up legal system treats sexual assault as a misdemeanor, it's a serious crime)

                • WuDrWu
                  WuDrWu commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Why do we keep talking like this happened? There's NOTHING substantive except that you on the left don't like Cavanaugh. Also, if this was a man accusing Sotomayor, it wouldn't make the Post's page 6. So there's that for equality.

                • wufan
                  wufan commented
                  Editing a comment
                  It’s a right to be able to serve if confirmed. There are literally no disqualifications, yet you are saying that any person that is in this same situation is disqualified. So, disqualification from SCOTUS is something you are advocating. What else are you advocating to these people be disqualified from?

                  Gun ownership? Voting? POTUS? Senate? Civil court judiciary? Practicing law? Police force? Firefighter? Mailman?

                  Where are you drawing the line and why?

              • #89
                This is so silly. I don't even post here anymore and the silliness drew me out. So, if that disqualifies a candidate for the job, what about DUI? I think DUI is pretty damn serious, maybe even moreso than whatever is being alleged here. I don't care how the justice system treats DUI, but drunks kill thousands every year, horny, out if of control high School boys, don't. I bet we could dig up some dirt and find just about every sitting justice drank and drove, and got away with it once.

                And we want to permanently disqualify a teen for an allegation never reported, and no other history of this behavior, when at his age, his brain wasn't even fully developed. Absolute silliness!
                https://www.medicaldaily.com/men-mat...reveals-246716
                There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.

                Comment


                • #90
                  And yes, Al Franken got a raw deal! Blame that not on Republicans, but an out of control #MeToo movement.
                  There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X