Y2HH
-
Posts
10,680 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Y2HH
-
-
1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:
They need to completely revamp how SC are picked. No matter what side of the aisle you are on, its pretty crazy when you realize that most SC justices all went to the same few colleges. Harvard, Yale and Columbia right now.
I think that there should be some thought to Justices being picked regionally. So that each part of the country has a judge that represents them.
I’m not a fan of the president picking them or the lifetime appointments, either.
-
5 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:
Possibly. But the "oh yeah well hypothetically your beliefs would be completely different!" is a pretty meaningless game to play because all it does it lets you avoid talking about the topic at hand.
I'd be interested in actually discussing hypothetical court and political structures, voting systems etc.
Well, we both agree that conversation would be worth having.
Here is the thing, right now we have a tit for tat system. One party does X when in power, and when it happens their side is okay with it, but when the other party gains power and does the same thing, or escalates what was started, it’s suddenly no longer okay.
Also, I’m not so optimistic some of these justices are gonna live another 40 years.
I’m also not fond of a political Supreme Court on either side. I think it should all be people with proven non-partisan records.
-
1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:
The alternative is "hard right SCOTUS majority for decades to come." I'm not pretending it's not an extreme measure. The last time it was legitimately threatened, by FDR in the 30's, was also a time that called for extreme measures in response to a reactionary court.
I was fine with tanking the 60 vote majority to appoint because Republicans were refusing to let Obama appoint anyone to numerous open judicial spots and to various executive functions. I'm fine with it being removed by Republicans for SCOTUS. It hasn't "backfired," because the idea that Republicans would at some point have the Presidency and the WH wasn't some unforeseeable future. Democrats could have put up with two extra years of McConnell blocking nearly every appointment, and we'd still be exactly where we are at now. Republicans would have blown up the judicial fillibuster early on in Trump's Presidency, and there would be that many more spots open on the courts. So if anything, we'd actually be worse off.
McConnell raised the stakes significantly when he refused to even hold hearings on Obama's appointment. If one side is constantly trying to be the "reasonable" ones adhering to dead traditions, they're going to get stomped. Yes, it's possible that a future Republican majority/President would then escalate even farther, but the alternative is to lay down and do nothing and watch a SCOTUS gut much of 20th century progressive reforms and block all 21st century progressive reforms on a wide variety of issues.
What would you have the Democrats or progressives do instead if not work to reform anti-democratic (small-d there) institutions?
At least we have some common ground here.
-
3 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:
All problems that you are okay with because your "side" does benefit.
SCOTUS could have easily gone the other way if 80k people voted differently in 2016, where a sudden and unexpected death swung the court to the left. How does that sort of system make any sense? Why shouldn't we learn from how 50 different states and numerous other countries have structured and reformed their courts over time?
And if that was the case I’m just guessing you wouldn’t be b****ing about the terrible system.
And I’d likely be right.
-
9 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:
All suddenly problems that need to be fixed because your "side" doesn't benefit.
Yea, and let’s “pack the court” because we don’t like the “illegal” tactics the right takes!
I just laugh at the willful ignorance here. It’s largely why I disappeared from here for so long.
Anyone that can’t see the flaws in suggesting something stupid, (yes, stupid), like “packing the court”, are the same exact people that were okay with the dems getting rid of the 60 vote majority to appoint, until it started backfiring ... like now.
-
9 minutes ago, daggins said:
Dude has said he doesn't consider Roe "settled law" but I guess we'll see when the inevitable challenge is heard in court.
I’m pretty sure he said the opposite, that it WAS settled law. Someone in the know should verify one way or another or we may as well delete this thread.
Edit: seems that in an old email he didn’t think it was, but has recently said it was.
Not sure I’m very worried about it, seems like people are just looking for things to worry about. But I suppose we shall see, since I think he’s getting confirmed at this point.
-
This thread is suddenly jumping the partisan shark. Not that it didn’t from the get go.
No longer worth discussing.
-
Okay, I hope nothing goes bad here one way or another -- slight disclosure -- I live around the corner from Van Dyke (no, I've never met him, and no, I don't know him) -- and our kids attend the same school.
-
This verdict has me so nervous. 😬😬
-
While I understand this is a rather serious topic, I found this too funny not to post:
-
1
-
4
-
-
21 minutes ago, G&T said:
This is not a criminal trial, it’s a political vetting process. The rules are whatever the senate agrees to.
Ah okay, good to know. Didn’t know that.
-
1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:
All you need to know is lying to the FBI is a crime. The alleged victim wants an FBI investigation and to speak to them. Those pushing the confirmation want nothing to do with the FBI. It is very telling.
It would be very easy to say it's equally telling that her odd demands to testify under oath means she doesn't actually want to testify under oath.
A few points on the matter, as I understand it, she doesn't want the accused to be in the same room as her? As uncomfortable as that may be -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- but doesn't he have the constitutional right to face his accuser in such a setting? On top of that, she also wants the defense to testify first? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm almost positive that's not how it works.
This is growing more bizarre by the minute and it's getting easier and easier to believe the democrats are simply wielding Ford as a political weapon at this point.
I'm sticking with what I said in the other thread -- Democrats (and those that consider themselves democrats) want her to be right, so they can get rid of Kavanaugh, and Republicans (and those that consider themselves republicans) want him to be right, so they can get him on the SC ... and neither actually seem to want to know the truth, unless that truth happens to side with them.
I wish there was a simple way to prove this one way or another so we can just move on from what's becoming a circus that's upending peoples lives.
(I wouldn't mind @illinilaw08 chiming in here, because I'm sure he can set the record straight on anything I'm not understanding in regards to the law here.)
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:
What's happening to Ford is the fault of shitty people doing this to Ford. And if her allegations are true, it's the fault of Kavanaugh.
Feinstein appeared to do everything in her power to NOT release the letter from Ford. It leaked, but Feinstein - to my knowledge - merely referred the letter to the FBI (happy to be proven wrong here).
Fair. It started with Feinstein, but she was not the end all of the issue. And the people threatinging her are pieces of garbage, and there is no defense for them or anyone that does things like this.
-
1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:
I think it is time to make a change to the constitution and make high-level judges elected officials. They can still have longer terms, but they should still have to answer to the American people. Maybe make a SCJ an elected official that has one 16 year term.
Wouldn't be opposed to this. I'm not a very big fan of our process of appointing SCJ's or the circus of a confirmation process.
Now shimmy yer ass outta my thread, Parkman!
lol
-
41 minutes ago, bmags said:
I agree, and that's actually not what I was referring to there. Not the partying, the response since the allegations took place was what I meant by the lack of judgment. This is specifically referring to last night, where a person who has consulted with Kavanaughs confirmation team wrote a thread stating that another classmate was more likely to have committed assault. It was completely out of bounds, and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that it may have been coordinated.
edit: I was quick to modify what I was referring to, I'm not sure I want to agree with the latter thoughts. While there may have been different norms at the time, she feared for her life and it scarred her, and he's never apologized. I can't speak to norms at the time, and I have deep regrets about some actions of when I was younger, but if you get to the point you would be covering a persons mouth to prevent screams for help, I mean there is not much nuance there.
Won't disagree with you there.
I can say without exception, regardless of how drunk I may have been and the poor decisions I've made, I've never done that.
-
8 minutes ago, bmags said:
Ha, dude this is the most I've posted in here in months. It's always interesting to talk politics with people with a sincere belief in what they are talking about and not just trying to get a rise out of people.
I try to be as honest about my political leanings as I can be, even when people don't really care for it. A lot of what is posted here, people need to keep in mind, is just snippets of thoughts. Things are so easily lost in translation on the Internet. I could easily write a hundred pages on my original post to elaborate and discuss, but that wasn't really the point.
-
6 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:
Ford has been subject to death threats and forced to moved. If this is a false claim that was made in an attempt to delay confirmation until the midterms, then Ford was willing to pay one hell of a price to save that seat...
On the Dems and Congress, the Senate map is actually a pretty tough road to the Dems taking control of the Senate just because of the seats that are up.
Yeah, that's incredibly terrible of people -- actually, the word I want to use is shitty, so I'll use it. It's shitty. And i feel the same way about the people telling Kavanaugh's wife she deserves to be raped for marrying a rapist, and other vile things such as that. I mean, what the fuck is that?! Where is the decency?
Ford, nor Kavanaugh's wife deserve to be treated like this, and anyone doing it is truly a terrible person.
On the bright side for Ford, at least when all is said and done she'll be receiving million dollar book deals and doing the talk show circuit and being famous for a while.
Also, just because I feel it needs to be said -- what's happening to Ford is Feinstein's fault, and all out of politics. I'll break this down quite litearlly to, "Oh well, fuck Ford and what she has to deal with so long as this derails Kavanaugh." That's what they said, and that's what they did. The woman literally told them all, "keep this anonymous, I do NOT want to come forward", and was eventually forced to do so because of politics. Such a wonderful lot of people we have running this place.
It's all so very ugly.
-
Sorry, off topic but I was actually dreading making a return to the Buster, but I'm glad I did. It's nice to have an actual conversation with you guys again. Even if you can't see how right I am and how wrong you are.
-
8 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:
Sounds like you are calling for an investigation.
I do lean left, and I don't want Kavanaugh on the Court (among other things, the Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat from Obama which altered the complexion of the Court for the next 40 years).
But I also was in favor of Al Franken resigning, even though I loved his politics, because the allegations against him disqualified him as a Senator in my opinion. So I think I can set aside politics when it comes to these allegations.
And this is the mind boggling thing to me. Kavanaugh isn't unique in his qualifications, and he isn't unique in his conservatism. Why are the Republicans hell bent on confirming Kavanaugh over these allegations?
I'm simply thinking if they haven't uncovered such things to this point, the FBI isn't going to suddenly wise up and find something after the other 50 background checks they've done on him over the years. This is going to take others coming forward right now. If they have a story to tell, NOW is the time. And if that's the case, fine...he's unfit to serve. But if that doesn't happen, I can't take that stance based on one woman's unprovable claim. I just can't.
And we both know what's really going on at this point -- this is an obvious delay attempt to get to the midterms where the democrats can possibly take over the houses and turn Trump into a lame duck and leave the court at 8 until the next election where hopefully a democrat wins (and I honestly cannot see how they can fuck this one up). That much is pretty obvious to me. This is becoming an annoying tit-for-tat dogfight in our government.
I'm also not a fan of lifetime terms for the supreme court.
-
2 minutes ago, bmags said:
I agree with you it's not on its face discrediting for the position if it is not proven.
But, I think all actions taken since the accusation could.
You factor in the actual events of the night, but Judge has gone beyond those claims to imply that Kavanaugh never got blackout drunk or unruly from alcohol in high school. Based on his writings and consensus on culture there, that seems unlikely. It is unnecessary to make claims like that, would he stand by those claims that Kavanaugh did not participate in that party culture?
On record, we may find out that they coordinated the story to imply a classmate had done it, which to me shows horrendous lack of judgment and character.
There's a lot that an investigation would accomplish on unanswered quetions here. If it does end up as he said, she said, then it is what it is. But it's why process is important.
We know democrats don't want him and republicans do, but there are plenty of judges (Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito) that are confirmed without this baggage. They exist now. No reason Kavanaugh, with his background in some pretty crappy partisan politics, needs to be the guy. His response to this all may reaffirm those behaviors.
I'll agree with most of this.
One thing I'll kind of step out of bounds on is where you say it shows horrendous lack of judgement and character. Of course it does. I did some hard partying in my youth -- in a very similar "party culture" and we all had a horrendous lack of judgement at the time, I'm quite sure. The girls that showed up with us also displayed a lot of those same traits -- again, at the time -- which is why we were all there in the first place.
None of us are those people anymore. It was part of growing up and learning. Now, I'd love to say with certainty I was never sexually aggressive to the extent of this story -- but I'm sure it's very possible I'm someone's "me too", depending on their recollection of things. I mean, I'd sincerely hope not, but it's damn possible.
-
Just now, illinilaw08 said:
We are saying "ok, he might have done it. He shouldn't be one of 9 people on the Supreme Court." That's a far cry from "let's fuck him for life."
And I'm saying I don't like that.
I think if it can't be proven, or other instances such as this one can't be found in his life (which would be enough IMO to corroborate this claim), that it's just not enough for me to disqualify him.
Look, like I said, this is clearly a partisan issue.
Odds are quite high if you lean left, you don't want him on the court, and if you lean right, you do. And based on that political position, you'll agree with Ford's account, or his.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:
Thank goodness this wasn't a problem for the Sandusky investigators, or the investigators into the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals...
And yes - it is evidence. The credibility of the evidence goes to the weight...
ETA: Dude - I'm a lawyer who does investigations like this all the time. I'd never take a deposition if I worried that every statement at the depo would be admissible in court. The Rules of Civil Procedure make anything relevant to the claim discoverable (subject to privilege, etc.), regardless of whether it's ultimately admissible.
I know what you are. And come on, with Sandusky we had living witnesses, testimony, etc. With this case we have one person saying he did, and two saying he didn't, with no video, no other witnesses, etc. I just don't see how this can be proven unless the only witness in the room flips. If that happens, hell with it, fine ... he's guilty. I'd be FINE with that. What I'm not fine with is "okay, he may have done it, let's fuck him for life just in case".
Again, I just feel it's a terrible way to do things. I'm not even saying I'm right -- I'm simply giving my opinion.
-
8 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:
You aren't sending this guy to jail. You are trying to determine if he is fit for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. All these things factor in. If there is a really good likelihood this occurred, he is unqualified. Chances are, when and if they investigate, your conclusion is correct, and they won't be able to verify everything. But with something like this, making the effort to find out is important.
Well, I agree every effort should be made, but I don't really agree with "if there is a likelihood this occurred" he's unfit. Why? Because of course there is a likelihood it occurred. Almost any claim a person makes (such as this one) there is a likelihood it occurred. But there is also a likelihood it didn't, and therefore it shouldn't be held against him unless it can actually be proven. Can't we just make these claims about any appointee from now until the sun burns out? "Yeah uhh, 47 years ago she/he did X to me, I have no witnesses, and I'm pretty believable, so you should just trust me."
I just don't like the precedent that sets, and that's not saying I even like Kavanaugh.
-
1 minute ago, illinilaw08 said:
Actually, it is how investigations work. They would take statements under oath from Kavanaugh, the friend, and Ford. They would probably also interview the therapist, other people who might have a recollection of the party, and put together a report.
That's literally what police do every day.
No, it's really not how they work in hindsight. You're talking about something that happened 35 years ago, with no other witnesses present. Yes, they can take statements from the three -- and that's all they can take. You can't take statements from "people she may have told", that's called hearsay. And one of the people she told already repeated incorrect claims -- therapist wrote an incorrect number of people at the party -- and that's why such claims aren't "evidence".
Your new Supreme Court nominee is....
in The Filibuster
Posted
I think adding a 10 year term limit is all you’d need in this case, with that limit imposed you wouldn’t really need more justices, as they’d be replaced constantly anyway.