US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Christine Ford has had her 15 minutes of fame and will now fade back into the obscurity from whence she was sprung.

DNC loose ends usually meet quick demises. Maybe she's lucky and will stay alive in this case because the democrats can probably get away with "she's crazy" if Dr. Ford spills any proverbial beans.

[Skybird]

Battles like this are pointless. Because:

1. The reputation of the court has severly suffered compared ot the high or low (I don't know) prestige it already had before. Future rulings with Kavanaugh having a say in, will be linked to this battle, and his reputation, which also has suffered. For the institution and the idea for it, its a loss. For Kavanaugh, too.

2. The parties both have made idiots of themselves. Both of them.

3. The polarization and trench-digging in society has deepened. Considering that until today sentiments of the the civil war, much longer time ago, still let their echoes hear, this leaves nothing good to be expected from the future.

4. Those citizens not caring to take sides in the trech-digging and polarization, will instead be even more pissed by the whole system, and alienated by it.

It may look like a short-term win for Trump, who once again behaved in a low fashion revealing what a rotten character he is - but the long temr cost America has to pay, is very high.

Congratulations, if you consider your opinion camp to be the factual, the legal or the moral winner. BTW, you know what karma is, yes? The unescapable causal link between cause and effect. What has been done now by either side (or failed to be done), will be paid for in the near future. Promised.

This is why I consider all this a pointless, unneeded battle. In the long run: only loosers - parties. Institutions. Citizens.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Dowly

You're quick to label Ford as having mental issues or acting, what about Kavanaugh's act of going from raging to sobbing over insignificant things?

But, let's forget Ford for a second. What of Kavanaugh's repeated lies, under oath, during his testimony? He lied about his drinking, he lied about the meaning of "boofing", he lied about the meaning of "Devil's triangle". Just to name a few things. A judge so willing to lie about so small things says a lot about his values, both personal and professional.

Hell, even the American Bar Association is now re-evaluating Kavanaughs 'well-qualified' rating.

There is no doubt he will be confirmed, it doesn't matter what he may or may not have done. The republicans know they can ram him through, and they will.

The fact (and it is a fact) that Kavanaugh did actually lie, under sworn oath, in front of live cameras, is, for me, more troubling than the other allegations. Someone who would blatantly lie just to get a job makes you wonder about how much else he's lied about and would he lie on the bench or in his opinions. Being blatantly dishonest is not a sterling start to a position on the SCOTUS. I have a funny feeling Kavanuagh's lies will come back to bite him...


One issue came to mind about Kavanaugh on SCOTUS: during his final appearance before the committee, he openly voiced hostility towards Democrats, in general, and the Clintons, specifically, among others. So here's the question: if, say, the Clintons were to be indicted and the case wound up before SCOTUS, would Kavanaugh be required to recuse himself for a previous openly expressed animus; and, say, a case came up involving a piece of DEM-backed legislation, or when a DEM takes the Oval Office, an issue involving the POTUS, would Kavanaugh have to recuse himself for a previous openly expressed equal animus? Hasn't Kavanaugh placed himself in the position of, by his own words and action, not being capable of fair judgement in those situations? Just wondering...


...and now a possible future news release:

Dateine: Washington DC


The Supreme Court ruled today on an historic Constitutional question and the Court in a 5-3 vote, affirmed a lower court ruling. The five Justices affirming wrote in their opinion about the seriousness of the Constitutional issues in play and the need to maintain the previous ruling. The three dissenting Justices, in their written dissent, questioned if the issue did not place in threat other Constitutional safeguards unnecessarily.


The ninth Justice, Justice Kavanaugh ruled "I like beer!" and in his written opinion stated "I really like beer!!".

<O>

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by vienna

...and now a possible future news release:


The ninth Justice, Justice Kavanaugh ruled "I like beer!" and in his written opinion stated "I really like beer!!"
<O>

To a lesser degree this was on par with replying to the Nazis who have you surrounded with the single word "Nuts!"

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

One issue came to mind about Kavanaugh on SCOTUS: during his final appearance before the committee, he openly voiced hostility towards Democrats, in general, and the Clintons, specifically, among others. So here's the question: if, say, the Clintons were to be indicted and the case wound up before SCOTUS, would Kavanaugh be required to recuse himself for a previous openly expressed animus; and, say, a case came up involving a piece of DEM-backed legislation, or when a DEM takes the Oval Office, an issue involving the POTUS, would Kavanaugh have to recuse himself for a previous openly expressed equal animus? Hasn't Kavanaugh placed himself in the position of, by his own words and action, not being capable of fair judgement in those situations? Just wondering...

And of course the same questions could be asked of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She has publicly lamented about Hillary Clinton's loss and blamed it on sexism. She has criticized President Trump publicly and suggested jokingly about moving to New Zealand if he won the 2016 election. She has also denounced players like former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for their “dumb” and “disrespectful” and “ridiculous” protest while discussing the legal status of such protests.

The late Antonin Scalia was also criticized for discussing issues coming before the Supreme Court or making highly political statements. So Kavanaugh's comments are not that controversial.

[Buddahaid]

I think I'm just going to give up caring now. US politics has boiled down to this.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

And of course the same questions could be asked of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She has publicly lamented about Hillary Clinton's loss and blamed it on sexism. She has criticized President Trump publicly and suggested jokingly about moving to New Zealand if he won the 2016 election. She has also denounced players like former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for their “dumb” and “disrespectful” and “ridiculous” protest while discussing the legal status of such protests.

The late Antonin Scalia was also criticized for discussing issues coming before the Supreme Court or making highly political statements. So Kavanaugh's comments are not that controversial.

No, Kavanaugh's comments aren't that controversial: they are just as equally ethically wrong and inappropriate for a SCOTUS Justice...














<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

No, Kavanaugh's comments aren't that controversial: they are just as equally ethically wrong and inappropriate for a SCOTUS Justice...

I really like beer.

[Bilge_Rat]

JUSTICE Kavanaugh now!

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

JUSTICE Kavanaugh now!

Yep. And for your full share of wailing and histrionics please tune in to CNN or MSNBC. You won't be disappointed.

[eddie]

Thought this was great!!

[Mr Quatro]

Well I'm glad that's over ... I can play my new Forza Horizon 4 video game now after waiting for the 18GB up date.

It is over, right?

[Skybird]

No, its not over. Long after the Donald is out of office again, Kavanaugh still will be there, holding up parts of Donny's agenda. So will the controversy and the damage due to his calling.

The underlaying issue, so they pointed out today in a longer documentation piece, is the abortion debate in the US anyway. Modern present with equal rights for both gender versus ancient era and oppression of women, you know.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, its not over. Long after the Donald is out of office again, Kavanaugh still will be there, holding up parts of Donny's agenda. So will the controversy and the damage due to his calling.

And what would that agenda be pray tell? Please enlighten us if you would be so kind. And how one out of nine supreme court justices could do this?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by u crank

And what would that agenda be pray tell? [...]

lmao.

Really, i am out of clues of what to think of some people. Is it missing empathy? Intelligence? Education? Experience?