Feinstein got a letter from....

[TUMe]

A California Representative who got it from a woman who doesn't want her name disclosed that says something [that hasn't been disclosed] that she said happened 40 years ago. Feinstein sent it to the FBI for filing with Kavanaugh's records. The FBI does not have plans to investigate.

I will be following this story throughout the night.

 

[lawpoke87]

He would have been 13 years old. Surely this isn’t real.

 

[TU_BLA]

He would have been 13 years old. Surely this isn’t real.

Even I find this one hard to fathom. Kavanaugh's legal record and bias alone should be enough to not even allow him out of committee.

 

[Watu3]

My concern is the increasing politicization of the Supreme Court which will lead to its being delegitimized as just another political machine with justices owned by the party that nominated them. With at least one justice (Kennedy) as a 'swing' vote, there was a sense that the issues not the politics were the basis of decisions.

Kavanaugh is Trump's fulfillment of a key campaign promise to pick justices who will reverse Roe V. Wade which is about as politicized as one can make it. The Republican Senate's refusal to even hear Garland's nomination was another.

Chief Justice Roberts is seems concerned about this issue which led him to uphold the ACA against claims that the mandate was a tax. If the Supreme Court loses its sense of legitimacy, what then?

 

[lawpoke87]

A clip from Justice Ginsberg talking about how partisan these hearing have become. On a side note...I know these are lifetime appointments but surely these Justices get to a point where they are no longer intellectually capable of ruling on some of the most complex issues of the land.

 

[TU_BLA]

A clip from Justice Ginsberg talking about how partisan these hearing have become. On a side note...I know these are lifetime appointments but surely these Justices get to a point where they are no longer intellectually capable of ruling on some of the most complex issues of the land.

View embedded media

Agreed. But as long as we allow Super PACs and "clubs" to buy their Congressional representatives, you in turn are buying their votes for certain issues, like this.

 

[cmullinsTU]

A clip from Justice Ginsberg talking about how partisan these hearing have become. On a side note...I know these are lifetime appointments but surely these Justices get to a point where they are no longer intellectually capable of ruling on some of the most complex issues of the land.

View embedded media

Ginsburg should've retired before Trump was elected. Now it is legitimately possible for us to have a very conservative Supreme Court.

Granted I am in favor of repealing Roe v Wade (not going to debate it with anyone here), I do not want the court dominated by conservatives because I disagree with so many other policies that have become what the Republican Party now apparently stands for.

 

[TUMe]

You would have to be not completely surprised if Trump or Pence gets another pick.

 

[Watu3]

My hope that Chief Justice Roberts might have some concern for the legitimacy of SCOTUS may be dashed. Apparently he single handedly blocked a lower court decision to let voters know who pays for political ads before mid terms.

Chief Justice Roberts halts campaign finance ruling

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/15/john-roberts-campaign-finance-crossroads-825761

 

[TUMe]

I am very much pro choice. As a right and as a small tool in the war against population explosion. There is no point in forcing a women to have a baby that she can not deal with properly. Here are some thoughts.

1. The Supreme Court is part of an equal branch of government. Once on the Court, a Justice votes according to law, past rulings, and evidence. Chief Justices Roberts and Earl Warren are example of not voting as expected on big issues.

2. The current nominee has a record of voting reasonably. In about 90 percent of the time he votes like Garland, Obama's choice.

3. There have been some dirty tricks against him. Schumer promised to throw everything he has against him. Feinstein released to the FBI a letter by an unnamed source about something that is impossible to prove or disprove almost 40 years later. Guilt by accusation is not something that is healthy.

There is a campaign fund for Susan Collison being raised...but she only gets it if she votes not to confirm. This is a naked bribe. It appears the votes are there to confirm, but who knows what Schuler and Feinstein will throw out next.

From the latest video of Ginsberg, it is not out of the question that the Republican president, whether Trump or Pence will get another pick and this will be repeated. [The framers didn't envision this sort of political activity but that was before parties.] As far as Ginsberg, she spoke out recently against how warped the process has became during the years following her own confirmation. To paraphrase her words, she was not subject to such a partisan process.

 

[TUMe]

Dumb double post

 

[Watu3]

So if that happens, what happens to SCOTUS legitimacy? Congressional Republicans have ignored tradition (Garland) and actively politicized appointments (Trump's campaign and nominees).

Most conversations now describe justices not as fair referees, but rather as partisan hacks. Not good. The Constitution supposedly set up a system of checks and balances which are vanishing. The House has become an active Trump apologist and protector and to slightly lesser degree, so has the Senate. If SCOTUS joins a neutered Congress, the whole concept fails.

The point about Garland and Kavanaugh voting the same 90% of the time only underscores that Garland's nomination was a centrist choice. The 10% difference is exactly what Trump repeatedly promised to his evangelical backers: appointees who would ignore previous decisions, particularly Roe v. Wade and limitations on presidential power.

 

[TUMe]

Remember FDR wanting to pack the Court? Remember Obama saying elections have consequences?

To this confirmation, there appears to be a serious problem. I would say it appears she is telling the truth. If so we start over. I would however like for her to say it under oath. Not on TV, if she doesn't want but to the FBI. They say say she passed an unofficial lie detector test. Again, I tend to believe her.

WA who are those "most conversions" with?

 

[Watu3]

Remember FDR wanting to pack the Court? Remember Obama saying elections have consequences?

Yes, and?

FDR didn't get his way in part because two justices changed their views (horrors) and the Senate voted down his plan to pack the court big time. Checks and balances. Equating "elections have consequences" with Trump's campaign is a joke. Garland was nominated as a centrist who would have been confirmed if it had been allowed to go to a vote.

Again, Trump is taking it to a new low and respect for the court will diminish and lead only for more tit for tat.

 

[TUMe]

Yes, and?

FDR didn't get his way in part because two justices changed their views (horrors) and the Senate voted down his plan to pack the court big time. Checks and balances. Equating "elections have consequences" with Trump's campaign is a joke. Garland was nominated as a centrist who would have been confirmed if it had been allowed to go to a vote.



Again, Trump is taking it to a new low and respect for the court will diminish and lead only for more tit for tat.

I don't see what you don't get. Packing the Court is much worse than appointing one Justice. I know you don't like him so now comes part two. Obama said elections have consequences. Surely you know what the consequences are, the president get to pick Justices, Judges, and other officials. It is in that Constitution thing. Now just because you don't like some of them it is not a crime. And yes he hasn't done well a lot of the time with the Cabinet.

If the accusations of sexual misconduct by nominee are true then he is gone and we start over. They next candidate will be picked by Trump if he is not impeached and removed by the Senate. He probably should be. But if he is, Pence will pick the next nominee and also pick a nominee for Vice President. I guess we could go another 2.5 years with just 8 Justices?

By the way, you didn't tell me who the conversations were with that described the Court as being so bad now.

But in all cases, the president makes the nomination. He doesn't have to consult Feinstein or you.

Again, I support Roe v. Wade and don't think it is going to be overturned.

 

[TUMe]

Kellyane Conway says both the accuser and the accused should testify before the committee under oath. I agree.

If there is anyway possible the questioners should ask questions and not make speeches, but they are Senators on both sides so there will probably be speeches on both side.

 

[aTUfan]

How do you defend yourself from an accusation 40 years ago.

 

[TU_BLA]

How do you defend yourself from an accusation 40 years ago.

We are on the opposite sides of the spectrum politically, but I agree this is a political stall tactic by the Democrats. I don't think Kavanaugh should ever see the inside of the SCOTUS chambers with a robe on as I think he is pretty clearly a closeted racist neo-Nazi per the e-mails that were released.

 

[eastcane]

Kavanaugh is done, well done. The broasted chickens at Wally World have more life in them than Kavanaugh's nomination currently has.

 

[cmullinsTU]

How do you defend yourself from an accusation 40 years ago.

One of the first times on here to say this but I agree aTUfan, it is he said she said. No chance there's any evidence still.

I suspect she's telling the truth but with it being so long ago, I'm not really sure what can be done about it now.

 

[lawpoke87]

Is it true that she scrubbed her social media profile prior to coming out? Is she political and does she lean left? Not saying this would necessarily make her a liar but it would indicate a possible agenda which is trying to be covered up.

 

[astonmartin708]

Is it true that she scrubbed her social media profile prior to coming out? Is she political and does she lean left? Not saying this would necessarily make her a liar but it would indicate a possible agenda which is trying to be covered up.

She's a registered Dem I believe, though that shouldn't really matter.

 

[lawpoke87]

She's a registered Dem I believe, though that shouldn't really matter.

That wouldn't matter imo. If she was active and outspoken (donor, etc...) it might go to bias but that's about it. If she scrubbed her social media presence prior to coming out then I would have some serious reservations.

 

[astonmartin708]

That wouldn't matter imo. If she was active and outspoken (donor, etc...) it might go to bias but that's about it. If she scrubbed her social media presence prior to coming out then I would have some serious reservations.

Haven't heard anything about that, but you might understand if someone didn't want to be harassed on the internet by a million supporters of one side or the other (if the accusations were flipped)

 

[lawpoke87]

Haven't heard anything about that, but you might understand if someone didn't want to be harassed on the internet by a million supporters of one side or the other (if the accusations were flipped)

I don't think she's deleted her social media just possibly scrubbed it. Anyway...guess she said a boy named Mark Judge jumped in and stopped the assault. Suppose it comes down to whether Judge supports her story or Kavanaugh's claim that the event never occurred.

 

[TUMe]

I don't think she's deleted her social media just possibly scrubbed it. Anyway...guess she said a boy named Mark Judge jumped in and stopped the assault. Suppose it comes down to whether Judge supports her story or Kavanaugh's claim that the event never occurred.

Actually , she said he jumped on . That led to it stopping but that was not his intent according to the story he was trying to become a participant .

 

[lawpoke87]

Actually , she said he jumped on . That led to it stopping but that was not his intent according to the story he was trying to become a participant .

Gotcha....so has spoken as to the accusation?

 

[astonmartin708]

I don't think she's deleted her social media just possibly scrubbed it. Anyway...guess she said a boy named Mark Judge jumped in and stopped the assault. Suppose it comes down to whether Judge supports her story or Kavanaugh's claim that the event never occurred.

She said it was Judge and Kavanaugh who were both drunk... Kavanaugh was holding her down (allegedly) and Judge was egging him on. Judge has since written pieces on his alcoholism in his earlier life. Judge apparently jumped on top of both of them, not as a savior per se, but more as a drunk ass who was rough housing with his friend and trying to join in while his friend (allegedly) held some girl down and attempted to assault her. Judge has already said he can not recall the occasion. Problem is, if they were both blackout drunk... of course they're not going to recall the occasion.

I honestly just think that this speaks to Kavanaugh's character. We all know the guy at party's who gets way too drunk and gets belligerent. He may be a good guy sober, but do you really think he should be on the Supreme Court?

 

[lawpoke87]

She said it was Judge and Kavanaugh who were both drunk... Kavanaugh was holding her down (allegedly) and Judge was egging him on. Judge has since written pieces on his alcoholism in his earlier life. Judge apparently jumped on top of both of them, not as a savior per se, but more as a drunk ass who was rough housing with his friend and trying to join in while his friend (allegedly) held some girl down and attempted to assault her. Judge has already said he can not recall the occasion. Problem is, if they were both blackout drunk... of course they're not going to recall the occasion.

I honestly just think that this speaks to Kavanaugh's character. We all know the guy at party's who gets way too drunk and gets belligerent. He may be a good guy sober, but do you really think he should be on the Supreme Court?

I find his judicial record much more of a reason to vote him down then an uncorroborated accusation which allegedly occurred when he was a teenager. Judge said it never happened btw not that he didn't recall.

 

[aTUfan]

Why now? 40 Yeats later?

 

[TUMe]

No way he would be convicted now.

But that is not the issue, he was going to be confirmed by a razor thin majority. Unless there is something changed in the next day or two, he is a goner. A new lie detector test maybe. The Post says she says she had one by a FORMER FBI agent. But really, I doubt that this lasts that long. If she testifies convincingly and under oath, he is gone.

 

[astonmartin708]

I mean, it’s just really evident that there are better candidates out there. Not even saying he’s not a good judge... just that he’s not the best one America can put on its most important court.

 

[TUMe]

She has been invited to testify Monday.

 

[aTUfan]

Please dont ask me what i was doing 40 years ago. I might have been at that party,

 

[TUMe]

Will she be a no-show .

 

[lawpoke87]

I don't see how she can back out at this point.

 

[Clong83a]

Yes, and?

FDR didn't get his way in part because two justices changed their views (horrors) and the Senate voted down his plan to pack the court big time. Checks and balances. Equating "elections have consequences" with Trump's campaign is a joke. Garland was nominated as a centrist who would have been confirmed if it had been allowed to go to a vote.

Again, Trump is taking it to a new low and respect for the court will diminish and lead only for more tit for tat.

I always thought Obama should have appointed Sandra Day O'Connor back to the bench, with the understanding that she would only serve one or two court terms. Nobody could have possibly objected, and it still would have de facto allowed the next administration to name a replacement since she would almost assuredly retire (again) within 4 years.

Also, as to Kavanaugh: I believe her. And even if it was a one off thing while he was blackout drunk and it never happened again, I think we can do better. I never did anything like that in high school, and I wouldn't have been friends with anybody that I knew had done that. It is the Supreme Court. We should be able to find a guy without any attempted rape in his history, teenager or not.

If it was a one-off poor drunken decision that has not ever been repeated, I don't think it should ruin his life/career (although him owning up to it and expressing remorse would be highly advisable). He's still a reasonably respected federal judge for life, and I don't think anybody is talking about trying to impeach him from his current post. Now if other women start to come forward and tell credible stories, that is another story.

 

[Clong83a]

How do you defend yourself from an accusation 40 years ago.

I agree with this sentiment, but there are some corroborating details which side with the accuser.

1) She doesn't have too much to gain by making something like this up. She's a well-respected academic, with a stable career and presumably the reasonably stable financial situation that goes along with that. She's going to be pilloried, have her home address listed on right-wing sites, and more or less have her character and reputation questioned from every conceivable angle. And it might not even stop Kavanaugh's appointment.

2) She produced notes from a therapy session that occurred years ago where she described the attack by someone who was currently a high-profile federal judge. This creates a TON of credibility that at least SOMEBODY high-profile attacked her once upon a time. It doesn't name him specifically, but it would be pretty odd if it was someone else, and she just went after Kavanaugh for political reasons. See point 1.

3) She names a witness, which is a needless complication if she were making it up. She could easily say, "He pulled me into a room alone" which would be a lot harder to verify/deny. The witness is somebody that Kavanaugh actually knew, which suggests a case of her fingering the wrong person is very unlikely.

4) That witness has previously published a book about how drunk he used to get at parties all the time when he was in high school. There is a character in his book named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" that evidently gets drunk at parties a lot and pukes in somebodies car on one occasion. This lends credibility to the idea that Kavanaugh might very well have been an excessive drinker in high school, and she describes encountering him when he was obviously intoxicated.

Nothing concrete, but a metric ton of circumstantial evidence. I think it would actually be quite remarkable if her story turned out to be false. It might not be enough to convict without the testimony of the friend, but we aren't judging whether he should go to prison or not. We are judging whether he should get a seat on the Supreme Court. I say no.

 

[Clong83a]

That wouldn't matter imo. If she was active and outspoken (donor, etc...) it might go to bias but that's about it. If she scrubbed her social media presence prior to coming out then I would have some serious reservations.

I agree that it could be interpreted as an attempt to hide bias, but I disagree that we need to come to that conclusion. With as much publicity as she knew she was going to get, I think she'd be a damn fool NOT to scrub/delete her social media accounts. There is all kinds of information there that can be used to target her and her family/friends.

 

[Clong83a]

Why now? 40 Yeats later?

Because she's been through therapy and more or less gotten over this and probably hasn't thought about it in a while, but now his face is in the newspaper everyday and he is being considered for a spot on the Supreme Court. So yeah, all of a sudden she is dealing with this a lot in a way that she hasn't had to in years and decided to speak out (a bit reluctantly it appears).