Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

I meant to say confirm not nominate
why did the confirmation have to be last week
why not order a real investigation & wait till november or even december



nb. the fact Kennedy retired at this point in time (instead of november) proves he's all-conservative not a "swing judge"
it's not like he didn't know the consequences of his retirement

They DID delay the confirmation for a week to allow for Fords charges to be looked into.

And why would you even expect that the Republicans would even consider delaying till after November, when they could lose the Senate? That would be strategically stupid on their part.
Whether you agree with it or not, a Conservative court is a legitimate and desirable goal for them, just as a liberal court is a legitimate & desirable goal for the Democrats.

Thing is, the situation at this time is in favor of the Republicans; they hold the White House and the Senate. The voters put Trump in the White House knowing full well the Republicans held the Senate and there was an open seat on the court at that time, with other possible openings in the future.

The plain and simple truth is that as far as SCOTUS goes, it's just a bad time to be a Democrat/Liberal. just as at times in the past, it has been a bad time to be a Conservative/Republican. They just can't win this under the rules, so they tried a smear campaign, which thankfully, failed miserably.

[Gatefan1976]

The voters did no such thing, repeating that lie will not make it true somehow.

[Gatefan1976]

King Dong yelling that all the accusers are a hoax. When will this person shut up?

Mitch McConnell "All the republican Senators are the real assault victims"

WTF

They should have an open investigation, I mean, if you felt your character was besmirched, you would want to clear your good name, right??.
So, lets open an investigation into Fords evil slander of Kavenaugh, see where that goes eh?

[Gatefan1976]

the Dems might wanna consider using the GOP's false logic (and false info) in their campaign

Nope, they need to stick to the truth, they need to learn how to sell the truth as well as the repubs sell BS however.

[Chaka-Z0]

[COLOR="#000080"]What situation could possibly exist where the cities would "oppress" the countryside?
What exactly about rural voters makes them more deserving of a vote than urban ones? The EC effectively does the reverse, beholds the urban/suburban voter to the whims of the rural minority. And canidates don't campaign in rural America. They go to cities, that won't change. And since there'd be more than two viable parties, they'd have to go to almost every city. The system works fine for Canada, Mexico, and Brazil. They have no EC and the problems they face have nothing to do with representation. They are also large countries with urban/suburban majorities.

Sorry just felt the need (just to clear any misunderstanding), to point out that we do have a multi-party electoral system, but we do not have proportional vote in Canada. Technically, a party could take power without necessarily having the most votes in an election. Our newly elected MP of my province has promised he would instill the proportional vote, as many of his predecessors promised as well and never done. Funny how when politicians win using that flawed system they don't seem as thrilled to reform the electoral system. I'll believe it when I see it, but I'd say odds are good we'll have it on the provincial level in a few years.

[Chaka-Z0]

Why do you think I so strongly favor a conservative, original intent minded court that sticks to reading what is actually in the constitution and what laws congress actually passes as congress passed them, as opposed to an activist, liberal court that creates new law out of whole cloth

You know who else reads ancient texts at face value? Radicals. Just saying. Ever heard of the saying ''Survival of the fittest? or those that survive are not the strongest, but those that knows how to adapt best?'' Ever asked yourself that maybe holding on to traditions and old ways is not the best course of action to evolve as a society?

They are losing the ability to do that. So I understand their motivation, but that does not in any way justify the completely inexcusable tactics they used against Kavanaugh, and in my opinion, those who perpetrated that atrocity should be held accountable.

Let's leave partisanry aside for a moment. Your entire political environment is exactly like those *inexcusable tactics* you describe. To be absolutely frank, I believe the odds that the accusations were unfounded are quite high, I believe that the Dems hiring protesters to yell ''shame'' to the senators is regrettable. But implying that the Replicants are above that, is a farce at best. If you wanna go down that road, there won't be anybody left on the political scene.

Oh and as far as Kavanaugh being angry and them being llike "see how angry he gets?"

well you'd be just as angry as he was if you were being automatically presumed guilty of a crime.....automatic presumption of guilt is not how our justice system is supposed to work

MG the big difference here is that I, or any of us, isn't a man of law that rules over judicial hearings. Judges are the arbiters of the law and shouldn't be prone to anger so quickly. That being said, I would be pissed too, but that's irrelevant.

There was plenty of time for an investigation. When did Trump nominate him? 2+ months ago? When did Ford bring her concerns to Feinstein? Again, 2 months ago?

As I said, plenty of time available to look into it. But the Dems bet on a delay, and they lost. Too bad.

Trump-a-Trump's flavored WH's issued scope was ridiculously limited for a thorough investigation, only took em 4 days instead of the planned week. Seems like your King placed his vassals where he wanted to and his king's guard did his bidding.

[Annoyed]

Trump-a-Trump's flavored WH's issued scope was ridiculously limited for a thorough investigation, only took em 4 days instead of the planned week. Seems like your King placed his vassals where he wanted to and his king's guard did his bidding.

I agree with the Republicans strategy, in light of the strategy the Democrats were using, which was delay at any cost, hoping to delay until after the elections, when they hope to take the Senate.
Combine that with the standard of proof the wanted to block his confirmation being the simple accusation itself, unproven, and absolutely, the Republicans did the right thing.

Here's something that may surprise you.

There is talk by the Democrats of attempting to impeach Kavanaugh if they take the House.
If this does come to pass, in order to impeach, they will have to meet the same standard as any other criminal charge; proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not just the simple accusation being taken at face value.

If they can prove Ford or Ramirez's charges in a court of law, with the burden of proof on the accuser, as it should be, then I have no problem with an impeachment. If he did as he was accused, he shouldn't be on the court.

But we have a presumption of innocence in this country, and the Democrats tried to change that to simply taking the accuser's word at face value, in a hurry-up process that bypassed justice because they can't stand the idea ofa 5-4 Conservative court, and that is unacceptable to me.

[Chaka-Z0]

But we have a presumption of innocence in this country, and the Democrats tried to change that to simply taking the accuser's word at face value, in a hurry-up process that bypassed justice because they can't stand the idea ofa 5-4 Conservative court, and that is unacceptable to me.

Presumption of innocence goes for everybody, even the democrats. I cannot agree with you until you realize that your unfounded scheming accusations conspiracy is in the same basket than Kavanaugh's sexual assault allegations. Is it likely true? I think it is, but stating it as fact is wrong.

Here's something that may surprise you.

That is like the least surprising thing you ever said to me, unless you're being sarcastic. If he is guilty and proof is out there, I hope the Justice's hammer smite his elitist's arse with all its might.

I think we've gone through that topic enough already, I would suggest a change of subject.

[SoulReaver]

There is talk by the Democrats of attempting to impeach Kavanaugh if they take the House.
If this does come to pass, in order to impeach, they will have to meet the same standard as any other criminal charge; proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not just the simple accusation being taken at face value.

they already have the proof (maybe they're too dumb to realize it) in fact the proof was caught on camera during the hearing for millions to see

impeachment 's basically impossible cause your system's specifically rigged to prevent the Dems from controlling 2/3 of the Senate anyway

But we have a presumption of innocence in this country for the elite classes

fixed

Nope, they need to stick to the truth, they need to learn how to sell the truth as well as the repubs sell BS however.

virtually impossible in that country & you know it

you're not in the US-SR either but don't say you don't know how the neocons we able to saturate the web with false facts to the point where many were swayed (statistical certainty)

the Dems should tell the truth but they too should use hyperbole + lies if that can help

fighting clean vs those who fight dirty doesn't work in that country

the neocons posted bs like "Clinton kills babies"

now the Dems could post stuff like "Koch-sponsored Kavanaugh is corrupt & wants to pollute the environment buhu etc."

or they could say "Kavanaugh poisons & kills your babies" which btw is a consequence of the former so still true

now that you've already seen how 2016 worked out...which of the 2 do you think will work best on americans?

[Gatefan1976]

I agree with the Republicans strategy, in light of the strategy the Democrats were using, which was delay at any cost, hoping to delay until after the elections, when they hope to take the Senate.

In other words, they used yours, and you were scared, even though they held absolutlely no power to stop you.

But it's somehow "their fault".

Combine that with the standard of proof the wanted to block his confirmation being the simple accusation itself, unproven, and absolutely, the Republicans did the right thing.

Actually, the left not only wanted, they WELCOMED an investigation, it was your team that pussy'ed out.
I wonder why...…….

Here's something that may surprise you.

There is talk by the Democrats of attempting to impeach Kavanaugh if they take the House.
If this does come to pass, in order to impeach, they will have to meet the same standard as any other criminal charge; proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not just the simple accusation being taken at face value.

Here is something that may surprise you.
NO, they do not.
They get an impeachment hearing from congress, they use the flat 50/50 call a flat vote like you folks have on nominations and his arse is gone, fully legal, and according to the system you are currently praising because the protections extended to the POTUS are not the same as are extended to the SCOTUS under the constitution.
(SR, if you are reading, THIS is how you do it, you don't lie, you just abuse power the same way WITHOUT lying)

If they can prove Ford or Ramirez's charges in a court of law, with the burden of proof on the accuser, as it should be, then I have no problem with an impeachment. If he did as he was accused, he shouldn't be on the court.

They already faced that standard, it was the republicans who chose not to have a full investigation.
It's why I said you would be free to investigate my wife because any such allegations against her would fall apart, and why a person like you would shut up about it.
You know you would fail, and knowing that colours everything because as has been proven time and time again, you have no conception about how other people think, or that they can even think independently of "party line" because it is YOU who cannot do so, and YOU are the standard, because if YOU are not important, then what is important?

But we have a presumption of innocence in this country, and the Democrats tried to change that to simply taking the accuser's word at face value, in a hurry-up process that bypassed justice because they can't stand the idea ofa 5-4 Conservative court, and that is unacceptable to me.

/quote]
This has nothing to do with justice, because justice is neither left, nor right.
Where is your "presumption of innocence" on any left, or even simply democrat person?
Russia, if you are listening, I am sure you could find Annoyed emails.

[jelgate]

The Russians say his emails are just a bunch of love letters to Trump

[Chaka-Z0]

AUTOMATIC REPLY: Trump will be out of office for the next week. In the meantime please contact Vladimir for immediate assistance. Thank you.

[Annoyed]

In other words, they used yours, and you were scared, even though they held absolutlely no power to stop you.

But it's somehow "their fault".

Difference: The Republicans refused to consider Garland (or any other Obama nominee, betting that they would win the White House. This was legal on their part. The Democrats, on the other hand, didn't have a legal process to stop Kavanaugh. They tried to delay and or stop him by lowering the standard of proof to be just the accusation being enough to block him, as neither Ford nor Ramirez had enough hard evidence to even get their case presented to a grand jury. Foggy memories only. Hardly enough for a criminal prosecution, let alone conviction.

Actually, the left not only wanted, they WELCOMED an investigation, it was your team that pussy'ed out.
I wonder why...…….

As long as the "standard of proof" was her accusations alone were enough to block him.

Here is something that may surprise you.
NO, they do not.
They get an impeachment hearing from congress, they use the flat 50/50 call a flat vote like you folks have on nominations and his arse is gone, fully legal, and according to the system you are currently praising because the protections extended to the POTUS are not the same as are extended to the SCOTUS under the constitution.

Not quite. Article II, section 4 of the US constitution. (Emphasis mine)

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

And conviction of. Which means the standard rises to "unreasonable doubt", not simply taking the accusers word. There is no chance that Ford or Ramirez could ever get a grand jury to indict on their foggy memories, let alone a conviction.

Game over, as they say.

They already faced that standard, it was the republicans who chose not to have a full investigation.

See above.

It's why I said you would be free to investigate my wife because any such allegations against her would fall apart, and why a person like you would shut up about it.

Absolutely, they would fail, if I had to prove my accusations. But what if my accusations alone, with no evidence was all I had to have?

[SoulReaver]

AUTOMATIC REPLY: Trump will be out of office for the next week. In the meantime please contact Vladimir for immediate assistance instructions. Thank you.

that's more like it

Difference: The Republicans refused to consider Garland (or any other Obama nominee, betting that they would win the White House. This was legal on their part. The Democrats, on the other hand, didn't have a legal process to stop Kavanaugh. They tried to delay and or stop him by lowering the standard of proof to be just the accusation being enough to block him, as neither Ford nor Ramirez had enough hard evidence to even get their case presented to a grand jury. Foggy memories only. Hardly enough for a criminal prosecution, let alone conviction.

I didn't know accusing someone of a crime was illegal. is Andrea Constand an offender too?

[Gatefan1976]

Difference: The Republicans refused to consider Garland (or any other Obama nominee, betting that they would win the White House. This was legal on their part. The Democrats, on the other hand, didn't have a legal process to stop Kavanaugh. They tried to delay and or stop him by lowering the standard of proof to be just the accusation being enough to block him, as neither Ford nor Ramirez had enough hard evidence to even get their case presented to a grand jury. Foggy memories only. Hardly enough for a criminal prosecution, let alone conviction.

A SENATE HEARING is NOT a criminal trial. How many times must you be reminded of this? There is no grand Jury, there is no court case, there is nothing.
All you are doing is repeating the same lie.

As long as the "standard of proof" was her accusations alone were enough to block him.

An accusation is a reason to investigate, not pass judgement.

Not quite. Article II, section 4 of the US constitution. (Emphasis mine)



And conviction of. Which means the standard rises to "unreasonable doubt", not simply taking the accusers word. There is no chance that Ford or Ramirez could ever get a grand jury to indict on their foggy memories, let alone a conviction.

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, stop repeating a lie.

Game over, as they say.

Wong game.

See above.

Yep, wrong game.

Absolutely, they would fail, if I had to prove my accusations. But what if my accusations alone, with no evidence was all I had to have?

Who says that's all you needed?
Do you know how to prove accusations?