Ruth Bader Ginsberg has pancreatic cancer

[GG]

8 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

From the party that chose Joe Biden, who literally has video of consistent abhorrent behavior towards women.  Boundless hypocrisy, with frightening consistency, all made possible by a media so compliant that even Hitler would be proud.

Remember the Godwin rule doesn't apply when you refer to Stalin, which is a more appropriate analogy anyway.  

[Alaska Darin]

1 minute ago, GG said:

Remember the Godwin rule doesn't apply when you refer to Stalin, which is a more appropriate analogy anyway.  

You know I don't care about rules.  Lol

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

That's not possible now with this news. RBG's death tilts the Senate races that might have gone blue back into firm red territory.

 

I disagree.  If I were a liberal-leaning independent who was maybe not going to vote, now I’m definitely going to vote. Voters like these will not be canceled out by conservatives who will vote in any circumstance. 

 

 

[snafu]

59 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I know it was Harry Reid who went nuclear, but it was Mitch McConnell who extended that to the SCOTUS.  I think for the sake of not politicizing the most respected of the three branches of government, SCOTUS appointments should require a 60 vote minimum.  Regardless of who is to blame for this change, let me ask you this:

 

Could Brett Kavanaugh have been confirmed with a 60 vote majority?  

 

Personally, I don't think so.  The Republicans are politicizing the Court by nominating someone who would never have gotten in under the old standard.  And if the Republicans were required to nominate someone with a 60 vote majority in mind, they would have selected a much less controversial candidate; one that would have politicized the Court to a significantly lower degree.  

 

I think the Court is at it's best when the Justices aren't ideologues and their rulings on a given case are far more unpredictable than their political views might suggest.  

 

Capco, nice discussion.  

I do think Kavanaugh would have gotten 60 votes if the Senate would have adhered to a review of his judicial record and his statements about being a Supe. That’s not what came about. He was smeared in a personal and really questionable way.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

And there was no rigid partisanship on behalf of the Republicans during the nomination of Merrick Garland?  Republicans don't vote in lock step either?  

 

Again, I'm trying to avoid piling blame on one side but most of the people here keep playing politics.  It's not just the Democrats that are partisan.  

 

Nothing is going to get better if all we do is point fingers at each other.  This is starting to look like the 1850s all over again.  

But we aren’t talking about Garland, we’re talking about Kavanaugh, and your insistence that he wasn’t a qualified jurist simply because more Democrats didn’t vote to confirm him.

 

To wit:  Merrick Garland was perfectly qualified to be seated on the Bench. Republican’s refusal to allow a vote does not somehow spike his quality.

 

And of course we’re headed for a Civil War. I’ve been warning of exactly that for about 10 years. Don’t worry, it will be over quickly, won by the people who have almost all of the guns, produce all the food, and comprise the overwhelming majority of the military.

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Capco, nice discussion.  

I do think Kavanaugh would have gotten 60 votes if the Senate would have adhered to a review of his judicial record and his statements about being a Supe. That’s not what came about. He was smeared in a personal and really questionable way.

 

Just like any nominee would have been.  The left side would have felt the need to push left of whoever was nominated.  The right would use the same tactics but eventually back down.

[LB3]

10 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

You know I don't care about rules.  Lol

You better watch out. Someone is crying in the OTW RBG thread that they should be allowed to talk politics there. That PPP is too mean and abusive for their delicate sensibilities and that PPP needs better moderation. 🤣

[Doc Brown]

LOL

 

 

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Just like any nominee would have been.  The left side would have felt the need to push left of whoever was nominated.  The right would use the same tactics but eventually back down.

 

The way things are today, I agree.

That said, I can’t think of anyone nominated by Clinton or Obama who’s personal life became the issue — other than the pot smoker, I think from UCLA (I honestly don’t remember his name off hand).

 

[Capco]

24 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

But we aren’t talking about Garland, we’re talking about Kavanaugh, and your insistence that he wasn’t a qualified jurist simply because more Democrats didn’t vote to confirm him.

 

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

 

I just happen to believe that people with credible sexual assault allegations against them have no place on the highest court in the land.  

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

The way things are today, I agree.

That said, I can’t think of anyone nominated by Clinton or Obama who’s personal life became the issue — other than the pot smoker, I think from UCLA (I honestly don’t remember his name off hand).

That's because all they did was replace retired Supreme Court justices and it didn't significantly shift the balance of the court.  What's interesting now is whether the Biden campaign will run on packing the court if Trump's nomination gets through. 

[LB3]

1 minute ago, Capco said:

 

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

 

I just happen to believe that people with credible sexual assault allegations against them have no place on the highest court in the land.  

There were no credible allegations against him.

[Alaska Darin]

7 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

 

I just happen to believe that people with credible sexual assault allegations against them have no place on the highest court in the land.  

"Credible?"   And you're a ***** lawyer?  Ladies and gentlemen...liberals.

 

I would 100% give you Thomas' accuser as credible but Kavanaugh?  That is the least credible public witch hunt I've ever seen.  Pull up your pants, your partisan is showing.

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

 

I just happen to believe that people with credible sexual assault allegations against them have no place on the highest court in the land.  

 

Thomas’ matter wasn’t an assault.

Kavanaugh’s matter wasn’t considered credible by the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — until it looked like he was going to be voted in with no problem. And even after a show pony tacked-on hearing, it wasn’t credible. 

 

4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

That's because all they did was replace retired Supreme Court justices and it didn't significantly shift the balance of the court.  What's interesting now is whether the Biden campaign will run on packing the court if Trump's nomination gets through. 

 

Are you saying it is okay to delve deep into sketchy personal history only when the balance of the Court is in jeopardy?

 

As for Biden’s campaign, if they weren’t beating that drum before Ginsburg passed away then they were missing a golden opportunity and that’s their failing. It is clear that the next President will get one or two more appointments in the next term.

 

 

 

[Capco]

Just now, snafu said:

 

Thomas’ matter wasn’t an assault.

Kavanaugh’s matter wasn’t considered credible by the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — until it looked like he was going to be voted in with no problem. And even after a show pony tacked-on hearing, it wasn’t credible. 

 

 

Good catch.  It was sexual harassment.  I should have said sexual deviancy to be more general.  

 

We can argue about credible or not all day.  But tell me, IF we assume the allegations to be true, would that keep you from supporting his nomination or would you still have supported it anyway?

[Uncle Joe]

12 minutes ago, LB3 said:

There were no credible allegations against him.

You're saying Michael Avenatti wasn't credible? /s

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, snafu said:

Are you saying it is okay to delve deep into sketchy personal history only when the balance of the Court is in jeopardy?

 

As for Biden’s campaign, if they weren’t beating that drum before Ginsburg passed away then they were missing a golden opportunity and that’s their failing. It is clear that the next President will get one or two more appointments in the next term.

No but you asked why.  I disagree with your second point.  Biden's team can now point to all the Republican Senators who promised not to confirm a Supreme Court judge during the last year of Trump's term (Graham, Grassley) and say if they want to play dirty then so can we.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Doc Brown

[Nanker]

The Dems have always played dirty... filthy dirty. “Romney hasn’t paid any taxes in over ten years.”  “Well, it worked.”

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, Capco said:

 

Brett Kavanaugh, just like Clarence Thomas, has no place on the Court.  And for the same reasons.

 

bull####. 

 

Period 

[Buffalo_Gal]

22 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

 

I just happen to believe that people with credible sexual assault allegations against them have no place on the highest court in the land.  

You think they had credible sexual assault allegations made against them!? Ummm not even close.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

You think they had credible sexual assault allegations made against them!? Ummm not even close.

 

 

Correct. The claims were bull####

[Niagara]

8 minutes ago, Capco said:

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

Why would any poster want to identify themselves as a lawyer. It just opens up extra scrutiny for the competent usage of language and biased politics.

Bork was a Constitutional scholar. He was over qualified for the Democrats, nothing sexual.

[Buffalo_Gal]

11 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Good catch.  It was sexual harassment.  I should have said sexual deviancy to be more general.  

 

We can argue about credible or not all day.  But tell me, IF we assume the allegations to be true, would that keep you from supporting his nomination or would you still have supported it anyway?

For *****'s sake... go over that ($#@*&% who "testified" at the Kavanaugh hearing. She's lucky she was not brought up on charges of lying to Congress. Instead, her gofundme got her a $1M payoff, and she road off into obscurity.

You know why that hearing ticked me off so badly? Because sexual assault and sexual harassment are no joke. And the Democrats made it into one. Ask yourself why.
 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[Just Joshin']

3 minutes ago, Nanker said:

The Dems have always played dirty... filthy dirty. “Romney hasn’t paid any taxes in over ten years.”  “Well, it worked.”

 

Don't forget the cancer fake news.

 

Romney is why people like Trump - for all his faults he fights back when attacked by the libs.  Mitt just says "thank you, may I have another".

[Dr. Who]

3 hours ago, Capco said:

 

None of this applies to me and I'm about as left as they come.  Don't paint with such broad brushstrokes.  

I was making a loosely allusive play on Michelle Obama's recent convention speech. Naturally, there are exceptions, but to make precise judgment involves a more lengthy discourse. Pithy expression is nearly always necessarily broad.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I don't see a cause and effect there.  Trump would be in the same position regardless.

[Capco]

7 minutes ago, Niagara said:

Why would any poster want to identify themselves as a lawyer. It just opens up extra scrutiny for the competent usage of language and biased politics.

Bork was a Constitutional scholar. He was over qualified for the Democrats, nothing sexual.

 

Just to clarify since some people seem to have missed it:  I am in law school, not a barred lawyer. 

 

3 hours ago, Capco said:

I've had the chance to read some of her opinions this semester and she was simply an excellent and talented jurist.  

 

I am doing well so far, so I am presuming I will have a "legal career" once I am finished (I'm looking at IP/Patent law fwiw).  I am not speaking as a lawyer or pretending to be one.  Sorry for any confusion.  

 

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

For *****'s sake... go over that ($#@*&% who "testified" at the Kavanaugh hearing. She's lucky she was not brought up on charges of lying to Congress. Instead, her gofundme got her a $1M payoff, and she road off into obscurity.

You know why that hearing ticked me off so badly? Because sexual assault and sexual harassment are no joke. And the Democrats made it into one. Ask yourself why.

 

Because the Democrats are just a cabal of pedophiles and the Republicans are the knights in shining armor coming to save the day.  Therefore, it's safe to assume the Democrats don't really care about sexual deviancy, but rather themselves and holding onto power.  There is not one strand of moral fiber in the entire party.  /s

 

Is that what you want to hear?  

[snafu]

24 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Good catch.  It was sexual harassment.  I should have said sexual deviancy to be more general.  

 

We can argue about credible or not all day.  But tell me, IF we assume the allegations to be true, would that keep you from supporting his nomination or would you still have supported it anyway?

 

Of course not.

But that’s not what happened.

 

[BillsFanNC]

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't see a cause and effect there.  Trump would be in the same position regardless.

Not if they succeeded in any of their unlawful attempts to oust a duly elected President from office.

[snafu]

26 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

No but you asked why.  I disagree with your second point.  Biden's team can now point to all the Republican Senators who promised not to confirm a Supreme Court judge during the last year of Trump's term (Graham, Grassley) and say if they want to play dirty then so can we.

 

I re-read your other post.  I see your point. Where I would disagree is that you’re talking about the process more than the availability of the next Presidential term’s opportunity. That’s a nuance that most voters for the Presidential election won’t care about. Also, Biden is running on integrity as opposed to Trump’s character. What you’re saying is a 180” shift. 

 

[Doc Brown]

8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Not if they succeeded in any of their unlawful attempts to oust a duly elected President from office.

Then Pence would be president and he'd be nominating a Supreme Court justice right now.

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I re-read your other post.  I see your point. Where I would disagree is that you’re talking about the process more than the availability of the next Presidential term’s opportunity. That’s a nuance that most voters for the Presidential election won’t care about. Also, Biden is running on integrity as opposed to Trump’s character. What you’re saying is a 180” shift. 

It's hard to tell how it would play out electorally as he could frame it as they "stole a seat" (show viral clips of Graham and Grassley) and any president with integrity would justify that wrong by balancing the court through packing it.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Doc Brown

[BillsFanNC]

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Then Pence would be president and he'd be nominating a Supreme Court justice right now.

 

Right. I don't think the tweet is trying to highlight a cause and effect,  but more outlining a pattern of similar behavior by the left/resistance.

[Capco]

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Of course not.

But that’s not what happened.

 

I would not have had a problem with a less controversial nomination.  I don't think any party should actively block the presidency from doing their duties unless required as a check and balance.  

 

It's not the issue of Kavanaugh being conservative.  Trump won, he gets to nominate a conservative.  Simple as that.  What I have issue with is the character of the nominee, which we agree to disagree on.

 

I'm just looking for shreds of rationality from a few posters (like you Snafu).  For example, a conservative poster said earlier in this thread that this allegation, even if proven true, wouldn't have mattered.  

 

And according to one poll, 55% of Republicans in that poll agreed with the poster.  

 

https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877

Again, I'm just glad to see folks like you who are decent to talk to without getting all emotionally hung up and blinded.  @Alaska Darin also gave me a glimmer of hope when he said Clarence Thomas's allegations were 100%.  

 

So there's some agreement to be had if we can take the time to come together.  Really though, I am not feeling good about how our country is fairing and whenever I post here it's to try and bring back rationality into the discourse, even if it only amounts to a drop in the bucket. 

 

If I wanted to stay in my own liberal bubble I would not be posting here.  

[Buffalo_Gal]

15 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Because the Democrats are just a cabal of pedophiles and the Republicans are the knights in shining armor coming to save the day.  Therefore, it's safe to assume the Democrats don't really care about sexual deviancy, but rather themselves and holding onto power.  There is not one strand of moral fiber in the entire party.  /s

 

Is that what you want to hear?  

Is that what I want to hear? No. But you did sum it up well.  🙂
 

[Capco]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Is that what I want to hear? No. But you did sum it up well.  🙂
 

 

*sigh*.... 

[Uncle Joe]

24 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Just to clarify since some people seem to have missed it:  I am in law school, not a barred lawyer. 

<snip>

 

 You are a pup.

 

8 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

<snip>

 

If I wanted to stay in my own liberal bubble I would not be posting here.  

Good, I am open to civil discourse. Maybe an old dog can like me can learn a something new.

[Alaska Darin]

18 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

 @Alaska Darin also gave me a glimmer of hope when he said Clarence Thomas's allegations were 100%. 

1.  I'm not a Republican and I don't vote for them. 

2.  Anita Hill was 100% credible.  Exactly the opposite of Blasey-Ford.  The only reason you think she's credible is because you want her to be.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Capco]

7 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

1.  I'm not a Republican and I don't vote for them. 

2.  Anita Hill was 100% credible.  Exactly the opposite of Blasey-Ford.  The only reason you think she's credible is because you want her to be.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

No, I think it's credible because experts in the relevant field believe it's credible:  

 

Did you find her account believable?

 

She gave one of the most credible accounts I have ever heard from a victim.

 

The “victim” label is very stigmatizing and associated with stereotypes of passivity and weakness. Ford departed from those stereotypes in important ways. She is an accomplished psychologist, professor and researcher, and I was glad to see those accomplishments presented at the beginning of the hearing. Not only that, but you could also see her expertise throughout her comments. She was very brave and a role model for all survivors.

 

Despite her strength, you can see the lingering effects of her victimization — how it has affected her for years, and how, even more than 30 years later, it is difficult to talk about.

 

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ford-testimony-credibility-memory-20180928-story.html

 

If anything, the only reason you think she's not credible is because you don't want her to be.  

[Alaska Darin]

3 hours ago, Capco said:

 

No, I think it's credible because experts in the relevant field believe it's credible:  

 

Did you find her account believable?

 

She gave one of the most credible accounts I have ever heard from a victim.

 

The “victim” label is very stigmatizing and associated with stereotypes of passivity and weakness. Ford departed from those stereotypes in important ways. She is an accomplished psychologist, professor and researcher, and I was glad to see those accomplishments presented at the beginning of the hearing. Not only that, but you could also see her expertise throughout her comments. She was very brave and a role model for all survivors.

 

Despite her strength, you can see the lingering effects of her victimization — how it has affected her for years, and how, even more than 30 years later, it is difficult to talk about.

 

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ford-testimony-credibility-memory-20180928-story.html

 

If anything, the only reason you think she's not credible is because you don't want her to be.  

Listen.  I'm not saying she was never the victim of an assault.  I've lived long enough and seen enough to know that virtually all women have either been assaulted ot nearly been.  

 

Her testimony about Brent Kavanaugh specifically WAS NOT CREDIBLE.  It's doubtful we will ever know the truth but I'm 1000% certsin that Joe Biden had committed egregious acts to women AS A SEATED POLITICIAN.   Yet you're still going to vote for him,  which makes you at a minimum an absolute hypocrite.  Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.