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

[Day]

i would ask you this Day, given you believe we can't know what happened one way or the other with 100% certainty (something i agree with though i lean very heavily towards he did it given the paucity of false claims and his lying about trivial matters), would you still see him confirmed? in a court of law he would walk, on that we all agree. there is not enough evidence to convict the man. but for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS? are you really comfortable with that given the 20% or 30% or 50% or whatever % chance you believe it to be that he is an attempted rapist?

Gorsuch got in without the circus as he was an actual choir boy at that prep school not a sloppy drunken jock pretending to be one. Hardiman and Barrett would likely cruise as well. why die on the hill of Kav when you find his accuser sincere?

As a just a citizen on the sidelines, I'd probably have just picked another judge yes. I stated way long ago in the thread I was pretty indifferent on him personally. I was honestly hoping for Barrett for my own selfish drama reasons. Putting myself in the position of a politician/senator, I dunno, I'd have to think about it a lot honestly. I believe there is some legitimacy to the idea that we shouldn't just submit to smears/allegations without proof, and just dropping him would just only enforce this kind of thing in the future, perhaps with even weaker evidence, perhaps inevitably coming from the other side, etc. I'd also have to think about my constituents and a lot of other things I really don't have to give much thought to right now.

Gorsuch wasn't exactly smooth sailing either, I think people are being a little bit revisionist there, while there were no sexual assault allegations there seemed to be everything but that, and it did go to a filibuster. They called him racist, sexist, said his frat was a date rape frat. It concerns me we've gone from confirming folks like RBG or Scalia with 90+ Yays to now what is just completely down the partisan line and the hearings are just hyper partisan soundbyte takes. As much as this forum hates to hear it this is definitely a "both sides" issue right now. I really don't know how we can fix it.

[Day]

Makes me wonder what Merrick Garland is up to these days

He's in heaven looking down on us, god rest his soul. RIP in peace.

[archibaldcrane]

Garland wasn't exactly smooth sailing either.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Day]

Garland wasn't exactly smooth sailing either.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I get what they did to Garland was fucked up, but the way you all jump to this immediately kind of shows the hand, that a lot of the pushback on Trump nominees is just revenge for what they did to him, and in turn when Dems are in power the hardline partisan votes will be returned in favor.

I do have to wonder if the current Dem leadership would hold a vote for a Trump nominee if they gained power of house/senate. I'mma say No, even if they never did that to Garland in the first place.

[Niiro]

I'mma say No, even if they never did that to Garland in the first place.

And you've come to this conclusion because....?

[Day]

Just best guess off current state of things

[Niiro]

You mean the current state that was brought about by the Republicans denying Obama the seat outright and then removing the filibuster from SC appointments?

That state?

[Day]

I said even if the Garland thing didnt happen, just a hypothetical

[Niiro]

You can't say the Dems would block any Trump nominee because of the "current state of things" when the current state of things are that way for a specific reason, then say they would be that way even without that specific reason.

[Tyche]

I said even if the Garland thing didnt happen, just a hypothetical

It would be a much different scenario. They'd hold the vote. But the Garland thing changed the 60 vote threshold. Dems would absolutely hold a vote. As to whether that nominee would get 60 votes...doubtful. Maybe. Depends on who was nominated. McConnell has fucked up the Senate as bad as he's fucked up this state.

[Ksandra]

Repubs opened Pandora’s Box for sure on this one, but now we have to face the facts that: 1. The Supreme Court nomination system is completely fucked and both parties are not going to play the nice guy with it. 2. Repubs still got everything they wanted out of it.

Welcome to the Hatfields and McCoys of federal law.


We’re fucked.

[kuronosan]

So your best guess based on current knowledge is based on something that happened in the past?

Maybe you should be in the committee.

[Dotsudoku]

I do have to wonder if the current Dem leadership would hold a vote for a Trump nominee if they gained power of house/senate. I'mma say No, even if they never did that to Garland in the first place.

at which point they should be voted out of their seats for failing to fulfill the role they were elected to play

it always confuses me when you presume none of the bleeding heart liberals around here would hold their elected officials responsible, if ineffectually, for participating in this toxic merry-go-round

[kuronosan]

at which point they should be voted out of their seats for failing to fulfill the role they were elected to play

it always confuses me when you presume none of the bleeding heart liberals around here would hold their elected officials responsible, if ineffectually, for participating in this toxic merry-go-round

The problem is we do hold Democrats responsible. Then we get GOP control. Then they don't hold each other responsible.

[Day]

https://twitter.com/SenatorReid/stat...15847190921216

[Niiro]

Why did Harry Reid do that Day?

Any ideas?

[shukudai]

God forbid people think something about someone that is probably true!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Y'know, I can't really tell who's going to come out on top in the midterms, or in 2020. But then I see people unironically say things like this, and I wonder how on earth the right could possibly lose. That opinion has about as much evidence as as my co-workers theory that "humans can't go into space" because that's what they believe.

[Day]

Why did Harry Reid do that Day?

Any ideas?

lack of foresight

[Moss]

That opinion has about as much evidence as as my co-workers theory that "humans can't go into space" because that's what they believe.

What the fuck?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

lack of foresight

Lol

You have to choose between "McConnell is a ruthless genius who gets things done" and "McConnell is constrained by norms".

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk