SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) II: Rape Isn't On My Calendar

[Uzor]

Grassley gettin real tired of Fords lawyers shit

https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/sta...568099841?s=19

That's obviously a political ploy. Her lawyers did submit that as evidence to the Senate before the hearing, and also wanted the person who did the polygraph submitted as a witness, but Grassley refused to accept that as evidence, which he seemed either very confused about or embarrassed about at the hearing when her lawyers said "Don't you remember that?"

[Eurell]

Yeah, fucking lol at him demanding the polygraph shit again after he turned it down lol

[guartz]

This Cathy Young, this author in particular, a paid presenter by the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative non-profit with high political motivations considering this study was released in the Obama presidency. This is who you point to as someone who heavily criticized the data?

Assumptions in this article are that by wording a question in such a way that respondents are more comfortable reporting the affirmative, it could lead to false reporting. With no evidence to back that claim. And plenty of evidence suggesting underreporting of rapes when questioned. That's a nonsensical assumption on her part.

She also assumes respondents will get confused about incapacitated rape because the surveryor has to clearly lay out the definition, but the respondent may get lost when the question is asked and simply answer in the affirmative. Again, without evidence.

Then she completely glosses over other studies that show similar numbers. So, when you tell me the numbers are "heavily criticized" and back that up with an opinion peice by a paid conservative writer that did no research on her own, you can take that shit to the door. I'll take the data of multiple studies by independent researchers over a conservative mouthpeice funded by a group founded on providing a conservative alternative to feminist tenats. You used to be better guartz.

Because feminists love to redefine words in order to win arguments, and at it's core that is what this is about. Falguni Shet did it to the word "Racism" and this CDC report did it to the word "Rape". Justice department has data too, but it's not good enough right? Because technically, drunk girls can't give consent. >.> It's 1 in 5 women get raped and you can't be racist to white people. Thanks Tyche for the cultural enrichment.

[Uzor]

Are you kidding me? Of course drunk girls can give consent. Someone who is passed out can not though. Just because someone is drunk does not mean they automatically give consent, nor does it mean they can't say yes.

And, surprise! Consent can be removed during the act. A yes is not a perpetual yes valid to the end of time.

[Tyche]

Because feminists love to redefine words in order to win arguments, and at it's core that is what this is about. Falguni Shet did it to the word "Racism" and this CDC report did it to the word "Rape". Justice department has data too, but it's not good enough right? Because technically, drunk girls can't give consent. >.> It's 1 in 5 women get raped and you can't be racist to white people. Thanks Tyche for the cultural enrichment.

If you took the time to, I don't know, read, you'd know that the CDC didn't redefine the word rape. They used data from an underlying study. Shit, that much is evident in the article you obviously didn't read, but felt confident enough to post to rebuke the numbers. And if you took the time to look at the 100+ page study that is the underlying data used by the CDC, you wouldn't completely misrepresent the results by sarcastically saying "drunk girls can't give consent". They can, and what they consider incapacitated rape is very clearly defined in the study as "any unwanted sexual contact occurring when a victim is unable to provide consent or stop what is happening because she is passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep, regardless of whether the perpetrator was responsible for her substance use or whether substances were administered without her knowledge." They further go on the break down incapacitated assault into 4 subtypes, including when the perpertrator knowingly drugs the victim, when the victim consumes alcohol on his/her own voluntarily, in which they acknowledge you can drink and still have sex that is wanted and consensual. The ability to consent isn't the sole modifier.


This idea of when consent can and can't be given isn't some new fancy definition. I can't give one of my patients narcotics and benzos and attempt to have them sign for consent for even the most mundane procedures. I'm sure they'd be happy to do so under the effects of those drugs, but it isn't, nor has it ever been as long as I have practiced, acceptable.

[Day]

Yeah, fucking lol at him demanding the polygraph shit again after he turned it down lol

Weird how they don't want to turn over supporting evidence suddenly tho dont you think? Also thought the last paragraph was interesting.

[kuronosan]

Weird how they don't want to turn over supporting evidence suddenly tho dont you think? Also thought the last paragraph was interesting.

I mean, you're not wrong. If they're refusing to turn over evidence at this point one of two things is possible:

1) It doesn't support the case

2) It does, but Grassley isn't going to do shit anyway

[Zealot]

Because feminists love to redefine words in order to win arguments, and at it's core that is what this is about. Falguni Shet did it to the word "Racism" and this CDC report did it to the word "Rape". Justice department has data too, but it's not good enough right? Because technically, drunk girls can't give consent. >.> It's 1 in 5 women get raped and you can't be racist to white people. Thanks Tyche for the cultural enrichment.

This is from reddit.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Tyche]

Guartz isn't even able to formulate an opinion on his own. I am shocked...


Please tell me it's from theredpill

[Zealot]

MensRights I think. I searched some of the key phrases in there and they're all from reddit posts.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Tyrath]

So the first floor vote is today?

Someone tl;dr the process for me.

[Day]

Seen this about 800 times on my feed this AM so might as well share it

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-...ent-1538715152

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s account, according to people familiar with the matter.

[Day]

Summary of Supplemental FBI Investigation:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pre...cutive-summary

[Tyche]

Per axios, they don't have the 50 votes right now.

https://www.axios.com/gop-nervous-ah...cbf6fd2d2.html

[Day]

So the first floor vote is today?

Someone tl;dr the process for me.

shamelessy stolen from Chad Pergram off twitter:

The Senate will take a procedural vote to “invoke cloture” or end debate on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh at 10:30 am et. This requires a simple majority vote.

Two things about cloture votes in the Senate: Senators sometimes vote to bring debate to a close….and then vote another way later on the underlying issue.
Yet, on other occasions, the cloture vote can predictive of how the final vote may go.

“51” votes is NOT NECESSARILY the threshold for adoption of cloture petition. Just a simple majority. Cloture motions are not "passed." They are "adopted."

The bar USED TO BE 60 votes to invoke cloture on Supreme Court nominees. But McConnell established a new precedent last year (not a rules change) to end debate on SCOTUS nominees. McConnell dropped the bar to a simple majority in an effort to confirm Gorsuch.

If the Senate fails cut off debate…or invoke cloture, game over for Kavanaugh. They are stuck. There is a bipartisan filibuster of the nomination and McConnell will be unable to draw debate to a close.

If the Senate adopts the cloture petition, further debate on Kavanaugh is limited to 30 hours. If all time is used, it culminates in a confirmation vote late Saturday afternoon.

The 30 hour clock begins to run from the POINT that cloture is adopted.

Senate now meeting. By rule, cloture votes to end debate on an issue "ripen" and are available for a vote one hour after the Senate comes into session unless the Senate makes other arrangements via a unanimous consent agreement.

[Tyche]

If they invoke cloture today, they vote tomorrow, while missing a GOP senator who is attending his daughters wedding. I bet they delay the cloture vote. If they don't delay, all the GOP members are a yes I'd assume, including Collins, murkowski, and flake.

[Roranora]

shamelessy stolen from Chad Pergram off twitter:

The Senate will take a procedural vote to “invoke cloture” or end debate on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh at 10:30 am et. This requires a simple majority vote.

Two things about cloture votes in the Senate: Senators sometimes vote to bring debate to a close….and then vote another way later on the underlying issue.
Yet, on other occasions, the cloture vote can predictive of how the final vote may go.

“51” votes is NOT NECESSARILY the threshold for adoption of cloture petition. Just a simple majority. Cloture motions are not "passed." They are "adopted."

The bar USED TO BE 60 votes to invoke cloture on Supreme Court nominees. But McConnell established a new precedent last year (not a rules change) to end debate on SCOTUS nominees. McConnell dropped the bar to a simple majority in an effort to confirm Gorsuch.

If the Senate fails cut off debate…or invoke cloture, game over for Kavanaugh. They are stuck. There is a bipartisan filibuster of the nomination and McConnell will be unable to draw debate to a close.

If the Senate adopts the cloture petition, further debate on Kavanaugh is limited to 30 hours. If all time is used, it culminates in a confirmation vote late Saturday afternoon.

The 30 hour clock begins to run from the POINT that cloture is adopted.

Senate now meeting. By rule, cloture votes to end debate on an issue "ripen" and are available for a vote one hour after the Senate comes into session unless the Senate makes other arrangements via a unanimous consent agreement.

thanks Chad

[Tymon]

If they have 51 they can vote without the missing senator and have Pence break the tie.

They can still invoke cloture today and vote tomorrow even with that situation, since the MIA guy said he would immediately hop a direct flight back to DC.

[Roranora]

how can they tie with an odd number of votes? it'd be 50-49 one way or the other

they'll delay until broheim is back if they need to

[Salodin]

Plot twist: McConnell purposefully holds a vote knowing he doesnt have enough. He then uses it to motivate the base to show up in Nov, breaking the blue wave and keeping Republican control, at least in the senate, certain. Dem numbers in the house will be underwhelming.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk