Good post, though I’m doubtful that Dems will have the mettle to pack the Supreme Court. You’re certainly right that not just Medicare for all but any kind of federal involvement in improving health care is now doomed. And not just health care, but any kind of progressive legislation. Any kind of environmental legislation, for example, in the interests of clean air and water or mitigating climate change, is vulnerable to nothing more than a coal company bringing suit, and this court will find a reason to declare it unconstitutional. The US has just taken another major step toward becoming an embarrassing idiocracy.
I would love to see that little prick have his “great man” fantasy vote diluted, and opposed by 3 or 4 younger justices, maybe women, who saw the hearing last week.
He will be an open sore on democracy until he is out of the robe.
Try the 20th century. Can’t believe no one mentioned another recent president who was elected despite a lack of a popular majority - Bill Clinton, twice. So shall we disregard his Supreme Court nominees Ginsburg and Breyer?
We have a system. Rather than focusing on packing the court perhaps the pledge of the Democrats should be to push an Electoral College Interstate Compact as a key issue in campaigning at the state level? Or go all out and push for a Constitutional Amendment enshrining a popular vote? Both are well withing accepted democratic traditions and less likely to result in blow back than court packing.
And you would be wrong.
Why did Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys refuse to turn over Ford’s therapists notes, and polygraph data to either the FBI, or to the Senate Judiciary Committee? Ford requested a hearing, she got a hearing. Ford requested that the FBI further investigate Kavanaugh, and the FBI conducted an investigation. Why didn’t Ford chose to assist either effort with actual evidence?
Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh? The answer appears to be no. The so-called blue wave that Democrats had hoped would magically materialize and sweep elected Democrats into legislative power never appeared. The Senate Democrats had a chance to question/investigate Ford’s claim during the confirmation hearing, but Feinstein, well… you know.
Many people in the U.S. still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Claiming that ALL alleged victims MUST be believed regardless of any LACK OF ACTUAL EVIDENCE will probably cost the Democrat Party seats in the upcoming general election. Haters gotta hate, but voters get tired of hearing haters cry wolf all the time. Keep up the good work.
Hahahaha. Ford told her story. Ford chose to provide the names of people she claims were present. NONE of those people agree with Ford’s story. Ford’s own therapist’s notes do not match her new number of those present at this incident. Ford talked. People listened to what she said. They just can’t confirm her story based on what Ford has claimed.
In 1968, Nixon won with 43.4% of the vote. In that term, his first of two, he nominated 4 justices that were confirmed. One was the Chief Justice.
Tis but a minor quibble that everyone she claimed was present disclaims knowledge.
What is your point? Did Nixon get less votes than Humphrey?
That is funny because, for starters, it was told in conservative places that one former boyfriend claimed that Ford coached a woman about what was then a coming lie detector test, and that that was definitive (as one conspiracy minded co-worker said to me). But the woman that was allegedly coached reported that what the former boyfriend of Ford said was poppycock.
Lindsey Graham calls for Senator Klobuchar to apologize to Kavanaugh.
It’s got nothing at all to do with “what century they want to take it back to”. Fiveyearlurker made a factually-incorrect claim:
We were correcting his ignorance.
I noted a post or two that seemed false, and so I provided the correct information without saying a word about how I wanted things to be.
You’re of course free to take issue with that; but why take issue in that way?
Would you hire someone against whom there were credible but unproven allegations of sexual abuse to babysit your daughter? No? What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?
The real issue is not this preposterous misapplication of the criteria of a criminal trial to evaluating the ethics of a Supreme Court nominee. The real issue is that many conservatives in the US believe that far-right ideologues should be given a free pass to positions of power regardless of their background. They just don’t care. Many, indeed, apparently feel that dishonesty and lack of ethics is a bonus for someone on their side, because more things can get done that way. I am truly sorry and embarrassed for your country. All three branches of government have been disgraced.
This isn’t a rebuttal of doorhinge’s post. Ford did not claim that Keith Koegler was present. Whatever hearsay he would like to share is non-responsive to “NONE of those pepole [she claims were present] agree with Ford’s story.”
Dr. Ford is claiming this as someone who was present during the alleged assault?
Ahem.
Regards,
Shodan
Honestly? Probably not, not that I actually have a daughter. Because my emotions would probably trump rationality in that situation. But if I’m a hiring manager for a company, let alone for the government, I have a duty to be impartial and rational, not emotional, about the hiring.
This demonstrates another way that false allegations are so damaging. Even people like me, who know it’s wrong to judge based on a mere allegation, would probably end up doing so.
However, we’re not just talking about an unproven allegation here, with respect to Kavanaugh. We are talking about one that has been thoroughly shown to have not happened in the way Ford described, with significant evidence against it and nothing apart from her claim in favour of it.
And no, the claim that she told someone about it 2 years ago doesn’t corroborate her story. At most it shows she’s been making an unsupported claim for slightly longer, depending on whether you believe that she told the therapist about the same incident - despite the lack of names and differing details.
75% of rapes have alcohol involved is not the same thing as 75% of drinkers being rapists.
An no, I was not “lucky”. I am not a rapey kind of guy so when I get drunk I simply do not get rapey. No luck involved at all.
I submit that most drunk people do not rape people when drunk.
Doorhinge’s post is smoke and mirrors anyway.
First, applying criminal trial levels of proof here is not appropriate. This is to determine if Kavanaugh is fit to sit on the Supreme Court. Something he is not entitled to.
Second, we have corroborating evidence that Kavanaugh is a rapey kind of guy. From Julie Swetnick and Deborah Ramirez and Christine Blasey Ford.
doorhinge wants you to believe that since each person is not individually corroborated that there is no corroboration when, in legal terms, they are corroborating each other as to the character of Kavanaugh.
Third, you have the very credible testimony given by Blasey-Ford. Even republican senators claimed it was credible.
Fourth, Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony caught him in lies and weird fabrications (Devil’s Triangle is a drinking game…really?).
No one is trying to send Kavanaugh to prison. We are here to determine if he is fit to sit on the court. See post #6477 for the rather long list of groups that do not think Kavanaugh should be on the court or, at the least, should be investigated further.
So yeah, the evidence we have so far is more than sufficient to keep Kavanaugh off the supreme court (or at least should be).
Yes, I would.
If those allegations were publicized by people who disliked that babysitter and had vowed that the babysitter wouldn’t get the job even before the allegations came to light, and if “credible,” is changed to mean “uncorroborated.”
So innocent until proven guilty is alive and well. Whew.