What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (2 Viewers)

Ditkaless Wonders said:
Not precisely.

It would set the precedent that though such accusations constantly materialize in our system for nefarious political reasons and can be unfounded, and maybe even are often unfounded when they arise thusly, that when there is some credibility to the information, and when appointments or nominations were rushed and under circumstances where full and fair vetting was thwarted, that then, yes, judgment should be exercised. 
Click to expand...
Or maybe the precedent will be set that the 9 seats on that Court are, you know, fairly important to the long term health of the country that exceed the time that any one Congress and any one President sits in the office, and by definition exceed the time any one version of the two dominate political parties have their way with the daily machinations of the polity and because of that, we should take every step to get good, perhaps even great, judges to sit in those seats and not necessarily use them as nine further co-chairs of the fundraising arms of those same political parties.

Maybe.

 
JuniorNB said:
The Republicans questioning her are going to have to walk a very fine line. With midterms coming up, and a President who's had 17 sexual assault victims step up, the last thing they want to do is to be known as the party that encourages rape. That adds a whole separate element to these proceedings.  
Click to expand...
Dealing solely with the visuals of the act of questioning her, in this time, with everything going on in this country with sexual assault and the similar attacks that are changing the narrative landscape of men in power, there is literally nothing that these Senators can do to look good.  At all.  But to the die hards on both sides they will see what they want to see and they won't change.  

Ultimately though all this is going to do is shrink that much more the base of the GOP.  This is going to cost them votes in the long run, not gain them.  At best, they hold their current line.  And it's not a good line.

 
Matthias said:
And if you accept and digest the consequential nature of the make-up of SCOTUS, further consider the monumental weight that these chinaceries and asymmetric power grabs have on actual people in our country. Rights and norms being respected. Corporate behavior altering life expectancy. So on and so forth. There is a great responsibility and consequence in how one chooses to comport with these norms or permit asymmetric abuse. Much, far more than abstract considerations of proper behavior.
Click to expand...
For me, it’s not about “abstract considerations of proper behavior.”  It’s about whether I support violating the Constitution. I didn’t when it was the GOP blocking Garland’s nomination, and I won’t if and when it’s the Dems seeking to violate the Constitution, whether it’s meant to be a ### for tat because both sides do it, or if it is a more noble effort to restore symmetry. 

 
Matthias said:
@bigbottom are there any standards or violations of government which would give you pause.

Again, presume the not entirely outlandish reality that that Garland curtailed the duration of a Presidency. If the Presidency was entirely obviated for a year in order to give that year to a predecessor of one's own political party, at what point does considerations of respecting the Constitution and purpose of government trump a comity norm.
Click to expand...
The way you have worded your question is confusing to me. But I think I answered it in my previous post. 

 
Sand said:
That rumors have swirled around HRC for years?  Nothing more than that, nor should you read more into it (as you evidently are).
Click to expand...
I think it is completely beyond the pale to joke about the sexual orientation of a presidential candidate. 

:chelseasmom:

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I will not join you if you're proposing that Dems just go ahead and approve Trump's nominees.

I would be fine if Dems said "after Republicans help pass a constitutional amendment term limiting Supreme Court justices, then we will vote on Trump's nominee." 
Click to expand...
Why not have the vote? 

I don't fault McConnell for not wanting Garland on the SC.  I wouldn't fault him and the Republican Party for voting him down (which they had the numbers to do so). I fault him (even though it be perfectly within the framework of the government) for not even having the vote. 

 
@Flash1

How about this:

If O.J. hadn't been convicted of armed robbery, should he have been allowed to sit on the Supreme Court?  He was only found liable in a civil trial.

 
No way the Republican senators will grill the accuser. They will hire an independent person to do that. If she agrees to testify under oath Monday.

 
JuniorNB said:
In your world, at what age should a high school rapist no longer be judged as a bad guy?  How about a high school murderer? 
Click to expand...
I think my issue is the apparent minimizing of this.  As though rape isn't the kind of crime it actually is - that it's more like stealing a candy bar than it's like murder.  Admittedly I have very strong feelings about this topic, but I'm rather surprised.

 
JuniorNB said:
In your world, at what age should a high school rapist no longer be judged as a bad guy?  How about a high school murderer? 
Click to expand...
Agreed. I also thought the Hannity tact on this (let's let her speak...and then let the 60+ women who supported him, and the parents of the children he coaches and the women he works with...and then we can decide which side is right and which is wrong) was equally as disturbing. 

 
Respect and allegiance to the Constitution, not some flag, not some political party affiliation, but to the ideals which made us unique and great, and not some fake mythos of what that ideal is,  would save us from most quandaries.  Sad that so few have read the document or understand history.  We are keepers of something powerful yet fragile which, while a paradox, is not contradictory, and yet we are about as responsible as chimps, on acid, with guns. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matthias said:
Does the Senate withholding consideration of a nominee violate the Constitution?

Do you accept that there are some procedural levers which can be pulled which cause the government to work in unintended ways which don't rise to the level of being unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
In the manner that the GOP withheld consideration of Garland’s nomination, yes. 

Yes.

 
Flash1 said:
Who was convicted of rape?

And while we're at it who's minimizing rape?
Click to expand...


Flash1 said:
As stupid as trying to DQ him because of something that happened in HS.

You guys are really grasping at straws
Click to expand...
I don't believe you'd say this if he had killed someone in high school.  I do believe you'd say this if he stole $50 from the band boosters or gave a kid a swirlie or stole a candy bar.  That's why I believe you're minimizing attempting to rape someone.

 
Henry Ford said:
I think my issue is the apparent minimizing of this.  As though rape isn't the kind of crime it actually is - that it's more like stealing a candy bar than it's like murder.  Admittedly I have very strong feelings about this topic, but I'm rather surprised.
Click to expand...
I'm not.  We both know that if news came out that Corey Booker attempted to rape someone in high school, it would be the top story on every single Fox News show and guys like Opie and Stealthycat would be having conniptions explaining why this scumbag should never hold public office. 

 
Henry Ford said:
I don't believe you'd say this if he had killed someone in high school.  I do believe you'd say this if he stole $50 from the band boosters or gave a kid a swirlie or stole a candy bar.  That's why I believe you're minimizing attempting to rape someone.
Click to expand...
He is not worthy of your edification nor is it remotely likely that he will benefit from it.   

 
ArbyMelt said:
No way the Republican senators will grill the accuser. They will hire an independent person to do that. If she agrees to testify under oath Monday.
Click to expand...
The Senators who can't lose in November will.  Those who aren't up for reelection and those whose states will never go blue this year.

Ted Cruz will stay out of it.

 
Flash1 said:
of course it's both. But something that happened 40 years ago where it's "he said-she said" and no felony convictions is pretty much inconsequential, you know it and so do I.
Click to expand...
As I've pointed out repeatedly, it's not just a he said-she said that happened 40 years ago. Not even close. If he did it- or even if he's shown to have lied about the possibility that he did it, perhaps because he is forced to acknowledge that he can't be sure as he's been claiming to be- that means he (1) lied to the American people about a sexual assault allegation at the age of 53; and (2) stood by as an army of conservatives attacked and disparaged an innocent woman on his behalf, knowing that what he said about being totally sure it didn't happen helped fuel their attacks.

Those are the stakes on Monday.  Nobody thinks it's gonna end with everyone agreeing to a set of facts.  But if he is forced to walk back his confident denials in any way, he's done. Or at least he should be.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
He is not worthy of your edification nor is it remotely likely that he will benefit from it.   
Click to expand...
I appreciate the advice.  Honestly, it's more about getting my thoughts out - it's a complex issue that I have a lot of strong feelings about, and it's more about me typing out what I'm thinking. I could just delete it afterwards, but instead I click "submit reply."

 
JuniorNB said:
I'm not.  We both know that if news came out that Corey Booker attempted to rape someone in high school, it would be the top story on every single Fox News show and guys like Opie and Stealthycat would be having conniptions explaining why this scumbag should never hold public office. 
Click to expand...
If he had dry humped the team mascot it would make national news.  Of course he might be putting the story out himself to pander  (or Panda) to the Furry vote.

 
Henry Ford said:
I appreciate the advice.  Honestly, it's more about getting my thoughts out - it's a complex issue that I have a lot of strong feelings about, and it's more about me typing out what I'm thinking. I could just delete it afterwards, but instead I click "submit reply."
Click to expand...
I understand.  I do it myself from time to time.

 
ArbyMelt said:
No way the Republican senators will grill the accuser. They will hire an independent person to do that.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they'll allow the Democrats to do the same thing? Or just spring their "I yield to the respected lawyer we hired for hatcheting" at the last minute.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Those are the stakes on Monday.  Nobody thinks it's gonna end with everyone agreeing to a set of facts.  But if he is forced to walk back his confident denials in any way, he's done. Or at least he should be.
Click to expand...
Forced by what? Say Kavanaugh goes all Rafael Palmeiro in his testimony. What would Ford and her supporters come back with?

I have only just read about Ford's accusations 10 minutes ago. I just don't know where real, conclusive proof comes from here. And I a uncomfortable with a 35+-year old accusation being exactly as good as videotaped red-handed proof. Why are so many people speaking as if "Kavanaugh absolutely did it, and it kinda doesn't really matter if he didn't"?

Confession: I have read only this page of this thread before posting. For all I know, there could be old Betamax tapes, cassette recordings, corroborating witnesses, etc. But we don't have any of that, right?

 
This is not just about something he did in high school. It’s also about something he’s doing right NOW. 

If he tried to rape her, he’s lying about it NOW. 

If he was at the party he’s lying about it NOW. 

I don’t know if he’s lying. I don’t know if this woman is credible. I don’t automatically believe her. I don’t automatically disbelieve her. I want to hear what she sounds like. After Monday I still won’t have enough info to know if she’s telling the truth but I’ll have a better idea. 

I already know that Brett Kavanaugh comes across as honest and trustworthy and likable. Of course that doesn’t mean much either. 

 
The FBI isn't allowed to investigate this unless the White House asks them to do so. You'd think an FBI investigation, interviewing the parties involved and resulting in a report, would be a good basis for a hearing. But the White House hasn't and won't ask the FBI to investigate

The FBI’s initial background investigation into Kavanaugh was completed before Christine Blasey Ford came forward with the allegation. Kavanaugh, who has denied the allegation as “completely false,” and Ford have both said they’re willing to testify before Congress.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have said they want the FBI to investigate the allegation. But FBI background investigations are conducted under specific procedures and through requests from government agencies -- which in Kavanaugh’s case would come from the White House, said the two people who asked not to be identified discussing the sensitive matter.

Further investigation by the FBI could be politically volatile, thrusting the bureau into the middle of a tense battle over the future lineup of the Supreme Court. While there appears to be limited evidence for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to work with, the bureau is accustomed to doing professional background investigations, even when the evidence is thin.
Click to expand...
.

Hosko said it makes sense for the FBI to vet the allegation, probably by first interviewing Kavanaugh and Ford, searching for more witnesses and trying to find any corroborating information.

The FBI said it was first informed of the new allegation on Sept. 12 and included it as part of Kavanaugh’s background file under a standard process.

Hosko said it’s up to the White House to define the parameters of any additional investigation, which should insulate the bureau from attacks that it’s overreaching.
Click to expand...
And then the interesting part.

The official said the White House wants to avoid a public hearing on the allegations -- a risky drama that could build sympathy for the accuser -- but is willing to accept a confidential inquiry.
Click to expand...

 
Doug B said:
Forced by what? Say Kavanaugh goes all Rafael Palmeiro in his testimony. What would Ford and her supporters come back with?

I have only just read about Ford's accusations 10 minutes ago. I just don't know where real, conclusive proof comes from here. And I a uncomfortable with a 35+-year old accusation being exactly as good as videotaped red-handed proof. Why are so many people speaking as if "Kavanaugh absolutely did it, and it kinda doesn't really matter if he didn't"?

Confession: I have read only this page of this thread before posting. For all I know, there could be old Betamax tapes, cassette recordings, corroborating witnesses, etc. But we don't have any of that, right?
Click to expand...
Politics.

 
Matthias said:
Nobody other than McConnell have done what he did to Garland. Nobody. It's dangerous and misleading to try to sweep it under the rug of, "Well, everybody is bad."
Click to expand...
I was talking about way way more than Gardland and I don't approve of how that political loophole was used really .... but they didn't bring a woman up from Garlands past to throw accusations either

Can you imagine Kavanaugh's family? What does his daughters say to their friends? His wife to hers? Its something never going to be proven, there will never be a legal consequence to it ............ its a smear campaign after 35 years and a political agenda

 
Captain Cranks said:
Ding ding ding.  You have forever given up the right to complain about a lot of things that will happen in the future thanks to Trump and the current Republican congress.  Otherwise you'll just be a partisan hypocrite.  
Click to expand...
actually I call things what they are - most people don't

 
Doug B said:
Forced by what? Say Kavanaugh goes all Rafael Palmeiro in his testimony. What would Ford and her supporters come back with?

I have only just read about Ford's accusations 10 minutes ago. I just don't know where real, conclusive proof comes from here. And I a uncomfortable with a 35+-year old accusation being exactly as good as videotaped red-handed proof. Why are so many people speaking as if "Kavanaugh absolutely did it, and it kinda doesn't really matter if he didn't"?

Confession: I have read only this page of this thread before posting. For all I know, there could be old Betamax tapes, cassette recordings, corroborating witnesses, etc. But we don't have any of that, right?
Click to expand...
What % of rapes/ assaults would you venture this material being available?

 
Stealthycat said:
I was talking about way way more than Gardland and I don't approve of how that political loophole was used really .... but they didn't bring a woman up from Garlands past to throw accusations either

Can you imagine Kavanaugh's family? What does his daughters say to their friends? His wife to hers? Its something never going to be proven, there will never be a legal consequence to it ............ its a smear campaign after 35 years and a political agenda
Click to expand...
Perhaps we're at a point in the political landscape where a person should make the determination if he wants to put his family through this if he has things like attempted rape in his past. 

 
The Commish said:
Of course the "things" here are of varying degree and, at the moment, there is one group who has "done things" rarely seen before, if ever.  One group is at the tippy tip of the envelope right now.
Click to expand...
that's true because they don't have the power of majority - the people in this country voted against Democrats and a change in direction and leaderships in the House, Senate and Presidency as opposed to how its looked the past 10 years

so how can the Democrats stop the elected Congress and President from doing things they don't agree with? Because that's the goal here, right ? its not WORKING with President Trump and the House and Senate GOP, is anti-Trump and anti-GOP and doing everything to stop them

GOP did the same thing to a lesser extent under Obama - the Garland block was political absolutely, but it wasn't a personal smear

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top