Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

[Zombie]

Bah. I’m tired! Scalia and RBG.

My mistake on Thomas. I meant Scalia.

OK, and?

 

[Stoked]

Bah. I’m tired! Scalia and RBG.

My mistake on Thomas. I meant Scalia.

You’re still wrong on Ginsburg. She received only 3 no votes and one senator not voting.

 

[Gameface]

why are your supreme court judges appointed for life ?

Supposed to make them non-partisan. They are supposed to be unbiased in their dedication to our Constitution.

It isn't like that anymore really (ever), but judges have been more moderate than they likely would have been if it was a political position up for review/reaffirmation.

 

[infection]

I don't think you really grasp how much women risk who come forward in situations like this. The women that I know with a history of sexual violence against them find it very difficult to talk about in private. It takes a lot of bravery and strength to do so publicly. That's proof enough for me.

Ok, that’s great and all, but women have come forward for many years, before this current movement, who have alleged much worse of those in power much higher. I will take you at your word that the coming forward is proof enough for you and that that guiding principle would play itself out in a multitude of situations for you, but for the rest of us whose minds are more clouded by partisan politics, what is a rubric to which we can securely adhere that would safeguard us in the future against crafting exception to this standard when it is no longer politically expedient?

 

[Zombie]

Ok, that’s great and all, but women have come forward for many years, before this current movement, who have alleged much worse of those in power much higher. I will take you at your word that the coming forward is proof enough for you and that that guiding principle would play itself out in a multitude of situations for you, but for the rest of us whose minds are more clouded by partisan politics, what is a rubric to which we can securely adhere that would safeguard us in the future against crafting exception to this standard when it is no longer politically expedient?

Uhhh.... What?

 

[Stars Fan]

Ok, that’s great and all, but women have come forward for many years, before this current movement, who have alleged much worse of those in power much higher. I will take you at your word that the coming forward is proof enough for you and that that guiding principle would play itself out in a multitude of situations for you, but for the rest of us whose minds are more clouded by partisan politics, what is a rubric to which we can securely adhere that would safeguard us in the future against crafting exception to this standard when it is no longer politically expedient?

No one wants to validate a smear job. Where ugly accusations are used to undermine an honorable character. That said, not all accusations are smears. Dr Blassy_Ford is, to me, a credible witness. Several things make me believe that.
1. Her initial disclosure was not to the media or even to the Senator. Hey initial disclosure was to a marriage counselor in 2012.
2. She puts a third person in the room who could verify or discredit her account. And that third person is a friend of the guy she is accusing.
3. Her willingness to stand up for her accusations publicly. She initially asked the Senator to keep her name confidential. That is consistent with most trauma victims. Once the committee had outed her, she was willing to put her name to it and stand behind it. Together, those facts make me think she is credible.

Im not sure if a drunken grope at a teenage beer bash is an indictment that should totally discredit the judge though. But if he lies about it, and the friend corroborates it... what does that say about his current character. There are plenty of teenage foibles that people grow out of. However, to take the offensive against the accuser is more worrisome. Own it and apologize. Or stand your ground. Which would you prefer the judge do?

Presume he is guilty. What should he do?

Now presume he is innocent. What should he do?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[RandyForRubio]

You’re still wrong on Ginsburg. She received only 3 no votes and one senator not voting.

You misunderstood. She overwhelmingly was approved, and just said in not so many words that were her confirmation today, it would not have been so. RBG things what is currently going on is way too partisan. The vast majority of what has been going on with Kavanaugh is partisan ******** by both sides, and it’s wrong and a sad sign of where we are going.

Now I’m not talking about the rape accusation, which I have said I think needs to be investigated. Rather I’m talking the perjury accusations, “I am Spartacus”, etc etc. I’m not even saying that Kavanaugh should be overwhelmingly voted in, just that this whole process has been obviously partisan and it’s bad for all of us.

 

[Stoked]

You misunderstood. She overwhelmingly was approved, and just said in not so many words that were her confirmation today, it would not have been so. RBG things what is currently going on is way too partisan. The vast majority of what has been going on with Kavanaugh is partisan ******** by both sides, and it’s wrong and a sad sign of where we are going.

Now I’m not talking about the rape accusation, which I have said I think needs to be investigated. Rather I’m talking the perjury accusations, “I am Spartacus”, etc etc. I’m not even saying that Kavanaugh should be overwhelmingly voted in, just that this whole process has been obviously partisan and it’s bad for all of us.

Oh ok, then I did misunderstand.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Also not sure why the FBI has to investigate? Not really their role.

 

[Zombie]

Also not sure why the FBI has to investigate? Not really their role.

Actually, the FBI is responsible for background checks of Supreme Court nominees.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

No one wants to validate a smear job. Where ugly accusations are used to undermine an honorable character. That said, not all accusations are smears. Dr Blassy_Ford is, to me, a credible witness. Several things make me believe that.
1. Her initial disclosure was not to the media or even to the Senator. Hey initial disclosure was to a marriage counselor in 2012.
2. She puts a third person in the room who could verify or discredit her account. And that third person is a friend of the guy she is accusing.
3. Her willingness to stand up for her accusations publicly. She initially asked the Senator to keep her name confidential. That is consistent with most trauma victims. Once the committee had outed her, she was willing to put her name to it and stand behind it. Together, those facts make me think she is credible.

Im not sure if a drunken grope at a teenage beer bash is an indictment that should totally discredit the judge though. But if he lies about it, and the friend corroborates it... what does that say about his current character. There are plenty of teenage foibles that people grow out of. However, to take the offensive against the accuser is more worrisome. Own it and apologize. Or stand your ground. Which would you prefer the judge do?

Presume he is guilty. What should he do?

Now presume he is innocent. What should he do?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

You find her claim more credible because she said there was another person in the room, even though that person claims they were never in a room where any such thing happened? I don't see how that helps her case at all.

If this attempted rape happened it's a terrible thing, but memory is not reliable. She can't remember when it happened, she can't remember where it happened, how do we know that she isn't mis-remembering who it happened with? It's unfortunate when justice cannot be served, but this is part of the reason that the statute of limitations exists. There is literally no evidence other than a 30+ year old memory, and anyone who thinks memory (even of important events) is reliable over that length of time is lying to themselves.

 

[Zombie]

You find her claim more credible because she said there was another person in the room, even though that person claims they were never in a room where any such thing happened? I don't see how that helps her case at all.

If this attempted rape happened it's a terrible thing, but memory is not reliable. She can't remember when it happened, she can't remember where it happened, how do we know that she isn't mis-remembering who it happened with? It's unfortunate when justice cannot be served, but this is part of the reason that the statute of limitations exists. There is literally no evidence other than a 30+ year old memory, and anyone who thinks memory (even of important events) is reliable over that length of time is lying to themselves.

That person claims they spent their youth in a state of perpetual blackouts, and said they have no recollection of it. I suppose it's possible that she is misremembering, but the same could be said of Kavenaugh. I find it interesting that the faulty memory argument only seems to be applied in one direction. In any case I think there's reasonable doubt that he's innocent and that is enough for me to say he shouldn't be sat on the highest court in the country for life.

Remember this isn't a court of law, this man's freedom isn't at stake, so the burden of proof ought to be much lower, imo. What evidence we do have, eyewitness testimony that had been related to her therapist (with notes taken) many years ago, is strong enough for me to find her credible.