Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Sand said:

Well, I guess that could be the difference, though I doubt it's admissible in a court of law.

 

I went to an all boys HS and I sure as heck didn't know 65 girls.  :kicksrock:

 

 

I went to an all girls school and didn't know 65 girls.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes.  If MT believes he was wrong to be angry at someone's stupidity, that's fine.  But I think he could reasonably be angry instead at someone's callousness and lack of empathy. I've been extrem

I’ve hinted at this before, but I’m not sure I’ve been explicit about it... I was molested when I was a child. The preparator was an older person in my neighborhood.  My parents were friends

So it is early.  But for those of us who did not sleep, it is late. And survivors and their family members have told their tales in here, and rent the hearts from our very chests, and opened eyes that

2 hours ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Gosh, I wonder why women don’t feel comfortable coming forward when they are victims of sexual misconduct.

There was an intervening 35 years to initiate an accusation here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Polish Hammer said:

For a traumatic event, why should that matter?  Does time expired make it less valid a concern?

Human memories fade quickly.  At some point he ability to conduct a proper investigation, particularly in an area like this, gets very difficult.  So yes, time really does matter in cases like these.  This needed, if it has veracity (which obviously we have no idea), to have been initiated many years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting the rape-talk aside for a minute ...

On Monday, a three judge panel of GOP appointees in the 8th circuit (including one appointed by Trump) decided an interesting abortion case - Comprehensive Health v. Hawley - in which they are essentially ignoring current Supreme Court precedent from Casey and Hellerstedt and betting that, with Kennedy gone, the SCOTUS will now allow state laws which essentially eliminate all abortion providers (using onerous regulatory requirements) without directly contradicting Roe v Wade.  The law at issue in this case would reportedly close all but one provider in Missouri, and is more restrictive in at least one important sense than the Texas law deemed unconstitutional in Hellerstedt. The author of this opinion has been openly hostile to Roe in the past. His justifications for working around Hellerstedt in this case are downright comical: 1) the restrictions don't violate Hellerstedt/Casey because the abortion provider has the opportunity under the law to petition the state for an exemption; and 2) Even though the Missouri law at issue is even more restrictive than the Texas regulations struck down in Hellerstedt, that case is distinguishable because it only applied to abortion rights in Texas, and made no findings that such laws would infringe on abortion rights in Missouri.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sand said:

Human memories fade quickly.  At some point he ability to conduct a proper investigation, particularly in an area like this, gets very difficult.  So yes, time really does matter in cases like these.  This needed, if it has veracity (which obviously we have no idea), to have been initiated many years ago.

How would you apply this stance to something similar, say the information that has come out about the Catholic Church recently?

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

So rape isn’t a crime in D.C.?  What about collusion?

Henry is making a semantic distinction - state criminal codes typically use the terms "assault" and "sexual assault" rather than "rape."  There are usually at least 3 or 4 different degrees of sexual assault, depending on the nature/extent of the acts. The term "rape" is colloquial, and isn't typically used in state criminal statutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Don't you get the feeling that we will look back on this thread, with it's likely hundreds of pages, and say, well, that wasn't really worth it.

I want Kavanaugh to be confirmed, but I have to admit that this will be a pretty awesome illustration of karma if the GOP bungle this nomination and lose the seat when the Senate flips in November.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I want Kavanaugh to be confirmed, but I have to admit that this will be a pretty awesome illustration of karma if the GOP bungle this nomination and lose the seat when the Senate flips in November.

How would the GOP bungle this nomination?  All I've seen is grandstanding by the dems.

Edited by JohnnyU
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Polish Hammer said:

How would you apply this stance to something similar, say the information that has come out about the Catholic Church recently?

It cartainly makes any investigations into these crimes all the more difficult due to the time spans.

It also makes it that much more galling that the Church decided to hide/obfuscate these crimes and play the shell game with priests getting moved from place to place.

Edited by Sand
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Polish Hammer said:

How would you apply this stance to something similar, say the information that has come out about the Catholic Church recently?

My opinion would be the same. If there was an anonymous accusation about a situation from 35 years ago and the only thing we had was one letter to Feinstein (that may change, but as of right now I believe that is all we have).

The catholic church situation was of course as you know very different. There were plenty of accusations made that were covered up, priests transferred, documents hidden, etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If it can somehow be shown that Kavanaugh attempted to rape somebody, that would be disqualifying.  And it's too late to send up another nominee before the midterms.

None of that is going to happen.  I think it's reasonable to say that Kavanaugh is going to be the SCOTUS and that people like Feinstein (sp?) are disgusting  Looks like last minute desperation to me. 

Edited by JohnnyU
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sand said:

It cartainly makes any investigations into these crimes all the more difficult due to the time spans.

It also makes it that much more galling that the Church decided to hide/obfuscate these crimes and play the shell game with priests getting moved from place to place.

Difficult, yes.  Impossible, no.  When I read your original post my gut reaction was that you were dismissive of the claim simply because of the time elapsed since it occurred.  The reason I asked these questions is that I didn't want to assume bad motive/intent on your part and understand where you are coming from.  If you are saying that is NOT the case (dismissal of the claim due to time) - and that it was merely a commentary on the difficulty of ascertaining an understanding of its truth - then I think we can agree on that.  

As for the specifics of the Church incident - and as a person that was Catholic raised and educated for 13 years - I totally agree.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, parasaurolophus said:

My opinion would be the same. If there was an anonymous accusation about a situation from 35 years ago and the only thing we had was one letter to Feinstein (that may change, but as of right now I believe that is all we have).

The catholic church situation was of course as you know very different. There were plenty of accusations made that were covered up, priests transferred, documents hidden, etc etc.

But don't you think that in that case (which may be a bad comparison) it all starts with a single person sharing their story - anonymous or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One distinction I think should be made: some of you are saying it’s an “anonymous accusation.”

My understanding is that the accuser is not anonymous. She identified herself in the letter to Feinstein, people may have spoken to her, and it seems like Kavanaugh’s people knew the allegations was coming, so presumedly they know who the accuser is. 

I agree that getting to the bottom of a 35 year old he said/she said story may be impossible, but any interested factfinders know who the woman is

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

None of that is going to happen.  I think it's reasonable to say that Kavanaugh is going to be the SCOTUS and that people like Feinstein (sp?) are disgusting  Looks like last minute desperation to me. 

Why is Feinstein disgusting? You must be aware that Ronan Farrow independently verified the details of the sexual assault allegation in an article today in The New Yorker.

Edited by squistion
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:
38 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If it can somehow be shown that Kavanaugh attempted to rape somebody, that would be disqualifying.  And it's too late to send up another nominee before the midterms.

None of that is going to happen.  I think it's reasonable to say that Kavanaugh is going to be the SCOTUS and that people like Feinstein (sp?) are disgusting  Looks like last minute desperation to me. 

Given that letter, what should Feinstein had done in your opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, squistion said:

Why is Feinstein disgusting? You must be aware that Ronan Farrow independently verified the sexual assault allegation in an article today in The New Yorker.

In JohnnyU's defense it's entirely possible that he's not aware of it. It really hasn't been that long, and it's been a pretty significant news day in at least two other respects.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

None of that is going to happen.  I think it's reasonable to say that Kavanaugh is going to be the SCOTUS and that people like Feinstein (sp?) are disgusting  Looks like last minute desperation to me. 

So tell me, how did the GOP get that list of 65 women from his HS days overnight? They have probably known about this allegation for months.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, badmojo1006 said:

So tell me, how did the GOP get that list of 65 women from his HS days overnight? They have probably known about this allegation for months.

Word leaked a week ago, and this many women from his HS got wind of it and got together on their own and supported him. Thats very telling. I've also read that Kavanaugh's alleged companion (classmate) has no recollection of the incident. This isn't going anywhere.

Edited by ArbyMelt
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily think this should be disqualifying unless we get more info (the lying to Congress and the refusal to agree to recuse himself in Trump-related matters is disqualifying IMO). I think they should probably re-open the hearing and discuss this, and if Kavanaugh says it's untrue under oath and there's no corroboration anywhere they can move forward.

But jeez, the GOP couldn't possibly have picked a worse tack to defend their man. Claiming that acting decent around other women is somehow exonerating and slamming the allegations because the alleged victim chose to remain anonymous is gross. Imagine if a business responded like that after someone prominent in their organization was accused of sexual assault.  The #MeToo crowd would drag them to their death, and rightfully so. It's almost like the GOP is trying to alienate the under 50 female vote.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ArbyMelt said:

Word leaked a week ago, and this many women from his HS got wind of it and got together on their own and supported him. Thats very telling. I've also read that Kavanaugh's alleged companion (classmate) has no recollection of the incident. This isn't going anywhere.

I first heard about it yesterday or maybe Wednesday. Who leaked it? And you are seriously going to tell me that 65 women got together to support him just like that? It doesn't smell right

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ArbyMelt said:

 I've also read that Kavanaugh's alleged companion (classmate) has no recollection of the incident. This isn't going anywhere.

So the guy that was implicated in helping him, allegedly, rape a woman says he can't recall if he did something that horrible?  Case closed.

Edited by Sheriff Bart
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, badmojo1006 said:

So tell me, how did the GOP get that list of 65 women from his HS days overnight? They have probably known about this allegation for months.

This part is actually pretty easy to explain.  Kavanaugh clerked for a guy who was a serial sexual harasser, and it was completely predictable that this might be raised as an issue during his confirmation.  So of course they have a bunch of women who have known him for a long time lined up to say nice things about him.  This particular accusation wasn't what they were expecting, but they were expecting something along these lines.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This part is actually pretty easy to explain.  Kavanaugh clerked for a guy who was a serial sexual harasser, and it was completely predictable that this might be raised as an issue during his confirmation.  So of course they have a bunch of women who have known him for a long time lined up to say nice things about him.  This particular accusation wasn't what they were expecting, but they were expecting something along these lines.

Except the list is 65 women who knew him in high school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This part is actually pretty easy to explain.  Kavanaugh clerked for a guy who was a serial sexual harasser, and it was completely predictable that this might be raised as an issue during his confirmation.  So of course they have a bunch of women who have known him for a long time lined up to say nice things about him.  This particular accusation wasn't what they were expecting, but they were expecting something along these lines.

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so do any of the women who signed that letter actually know the accuser and did they sign it before they knew the allegation was attempted rape those are two questions i would like to know and now that they do know do all of them say sure keep my name on that letter take that to the bank brohans 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Except the list is 65 women who knew him in high school.

What's the other competing story here?  From what I've read, there were no Senate Democrats other than Feinstein who knew about this allegation, so I'm not sure how Republicans were supposed to know about it ahead of time.  This is something that came out nowhere, not something that's been following Kavanaugh around all this time.  It seems a lot more plausible to me that Republicans had their PR ducks in a row -- it would have been professional malpractice not to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sand said:

Well, I guess that could be the difference, though I doubt it's admissible in a court of law.

 

I went to an all boys HS and I sure as heck didn't know 65 girls.  :kicksrock:

 

 

Yeah.  I went to a coed high school, most of my friends were girls, and if 65 women step forward and say they knew enough about me then to attest to my character, at least 50 are lying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Henry is making a semantic distinction - state criminal codes typically use the terms "assault" and "sexual assault" rather than "rape."  There are usually at least 3 or 4 different degrees of sexual assault, depending on the nature/extent of the acts. The term "rape" is colloquial, and isn't typically used in state criminal statutes.

Right. Which is why Ivan trying to talk about the "legal distinction" between "rape and attempted rape" isn't a worthwhile conversation topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

What's the other competing story here?  From what I've read, there were no Senate Democrats other than Feinstein who knew about this allegation, so I'm not sure how Republicans were supposed to know about it ahead of time.  This is something that came out nowhere, not something that's been following Kavanaugh around all this time.  It seems a lot more plausible to me that Republicans had their PR ducks in a row -- it would have been professional malpractice not to.

Feinstein and her congresswoman (Eshoo). She went to them in July, per the Farrow story, so it's been out there a while.

And there's plenty of ways the GOP would know about it but not the Dems.  The White House/the Federalist Society likely had discussions with Kavanaugh during the vetting process in which they would obviously have had more broader discussions of possible roadblocks to his confirmation.  If he knows this woman is out there that thinks she was sexually assaulted by him (or, worse, if he actually did sexually assault her) he likely would have shared it with them. And of course they would have shared it with the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee.

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatness said:

Here's the letter Grassley had, dated today, by 65 women who just got up early, and all chatted and figured it would be a good idea, because they've all known Kavanaugh all their lives, even though they never went to school with him.

If Kavanaugh is a sexual predator, we'll find out about it soon enough.  Other accusers will come forward.  They always do -- we've seen this over and over again.

Likewise, if there is some kind of conspiracy behind this letter, we'll find that out as well.  All 65 signatories have probably already been contacted by the media to find out when they were contacted and by whom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Feinstein and her congresswoman (Eshoo). She went to them in July, per the Farrow story, so it's been out there a while.

And there's plenty of ways the GOP would know about it but not the Dems.  The White House/the Federalist Society likely had discussions with Kavanaugh during the vetting process in which they would obviously have had more broader discussions of possible roadblocks to his confirmation.  If he knows this woman is out there that thinks she was sexually assaulted by him (or, worse, if he actually did sexually assault her) he likely would have shared it with them. And of course they would have shared it with the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee.

Well, that would be fine too.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Clayton Gray changed the title to ***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Welcome New Justice

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...