Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Future of the Supreme Court

The Future of the Supreme Court (Page 3)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2018, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
States are passing right-to-work legislation in the private sector because that’s been legal since 1947.

They need not ask for either forgiveness or permission.
True. You don't have to be a union member as a condition of employment in the private sector. But you do have to pay the "agency fee". It's this latter part that's being targeted now.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2018, 08:07 PM
 
Sorry, I've been busy with a wedding the past week, so I'll be slowly replying to backlog of posts across various threads.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why it’s a First Amendment violation seems straightforward to me. The government cannot compel people to personally fund political speech unless the circumstances are extraordinary. A 5% hit isn’t extraordinary.
So why not require the unions to split the funds so they don't mix? Allow Union fees then have Union + PAC fees for those who choose?

Here's what grates me: The conservative position seems to be that if you go to work for a company that limits you to arbitration agreements, that's ok because you don't have to work there. But if you go to work for a company that has a union, it's not ok to pay those fees, even though you don't have to work there.

Either signing an arbitration agreement is coercion or signing onto a job with union employment is not coercion. Because they way they present it, right now, what you agree to with union employment is coercive but what you agree to with company employment is not.

And honestly, this boils down to the bullshit idea that money = speech. My first amendment rights are violated if the fruits of my labor go to political ads from a union, but my first amendment right are not violated if the fruits of my labor fund political ads from the company I work for.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2018, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It doesn’t necessarily work this way. My sincerely held legal belief is Roe v. Wade was a shit decision.
Feel free to elaborate.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
In [current year] I don’t flip it because the shit reasoning hasn’t metastasized, I dislike revoking liberty, and concerns over stare decisis (ones I don’t have with Janus).

I don’t know if Roberts feels the same, but the positions can coexist inside the same skull.
If you think abortion is murder, overturning Roe isn't revoking liberty it's granting it to fetuses. That's my concern about Roberts. The root of the opposition is a moral argument, not a legal one. Which is why I can't have faith in Roberts.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2018, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Ok, so if I were being precise I'd say they have weakened them and set them on a course for declining membership over time. I'd also say that is the goal of these suits rather than good-faith objections.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/ja...re-union-dues/
Less than a month after he won a Supreme Court case to preserve his First Amendment rights as a state worker not to pay union fees, Mark Janus has announced he’s quitting his job for a position with the conservative think tank that helped bankroll his case.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2018, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Feel free to elaborate.
1) The 14th Amendment wasn’t intended to be used that way, and I’m a constructionist.

2) Jim Crow laws don’t violate the 14th Amendment, but abortion laws do?

3) That what a state denies a person by making abortion illegal is due process of law doesn’t make the slightest ****ing lick of sense.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2018, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So why not require the unions to split the funds so they don't mix? Allow Union fees then have Union + PAC fees for those who choose?
Here’s an agency fee structure I could get on board with.

If a union wants agency fees, that percentage of a full member’s dues are also restricted.

If this isn’t the case, then a restricted dollar frees up an unrestricted one. Knowing unions the way I do, that happens at a nearly 1:1 ratio. A union with agency fees spends zero unrestricted dollars on restricted dollar activities.
( Last edited by subego; Jul 26, 2018 at 03:28 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2018, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's what grates me: The conservative position seems to be that if you go to work for a company that limits you to arbitration agreements, that's ok because you don't have to work there. But if you go to work for a company that has a union, it's not ok to pay those fees, even though you don't have to work there.

Either signing an arbitration agreement is coercion or signing onto a job with union employment is not coercion. Because they way they present it, right now, what you agree to with union employment is coercive but what you agree to with company employment is not.

And honestly, this boils down to the bullshit idea that money = speech. My first amendment rights are violated if the fruits of my labor go to political ads from a union, but my first amendment right are not violated if the fruits of my labor fund political ads from the company I work for.
This is a valid discussion, but Janus is about what the government gets to do.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2018, 12:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
If you think abortion is murder, overturning Roe isn't revoking liberty it's granting it to fetuses. That's my concern about Roberts. The root of the opposition is a moral argument, not a legal one. Which is why I can't have faith in Roberts.
I obviously could be wrong, but I don’t get that vibe.

Directly equating abortion with murder requires an ideological ferocity I haven’t seen from him.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2018, 01:10 PM
 
Placing the rights of the fetus above the rights of the mother is perhaps some kind of spin to bypass that tangle.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2018, 03:30 PM
 
Applying that to the first trimester is still pretty fierce.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2018, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I obviously could be wrong, but I don’t get that vibe.

Directly equating abortion with murder requires an ideological ferocity I haven’t seen from him.
I agree on ferocity but I haven't examined his past work in depth.

Tangentially related thought I had last night: Sue Collins is nominally pro-choice yet every signal points to that not being a factor in her vote for Kavanaugh. Yet some think someone pro-life like Roberts will vote to maintain Roe. I can't work out the logic of this dichotomy.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2018, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here’s an agency fee structure I could get on board with.

If a union wants agency fees, that percentage of a full member’s dues are also restricted.

If this isn’t the case, then a restricted dollar frees up an unrestricted one. Knowing unions the way I do, that happens at a nearly 1:1 ratio. A union with agency fees spends zero unrestricted dollars on restricted dollar activities.
Yes, that's what I was getting at. X = non political union dues, Y = seperate Union PAC dues
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2018, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is a valid discussion, but Janus is about what the government gets to do.
Cynically, I don't think the Janus ruling will remain about 'what the government gets to do.'

And my point stands about this not mattering if money ≠ speech.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2018, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) The 14th Amendment wasn’t intended to be used that way, and I’m a constructionist.
I'd probably need to do an explainer to fully comprehend. Looking for RBGs opinion (since I've read several times she disagreed with on the ground it was decided) I get this:
Her pique is that the Roe opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, relies on a “right of privacy” under the 4th Amendment and emphasizes the right of physicians to practice medicine as they see fit. She prefers that abortion rights be recognized under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, based on the view that having a child should be a woman’s choice.
I agree with her.

I'm also going to take a wild guess that based on our discussions over the years you would not consider me a constructionist,


Originally Posted by subego View Post
2) Jim Crow laws don’t violate the 14th Amendment, but abortion laws do?
Let's not pretend Jim Crow laws were ruled on in some kind of racial vacuum. It was as misguided at some of the current SCOTUS decisions which uphold decisions on some kind of assumption of 'good faith'* (Unless you're ruling against Christians).
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2018, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm also going to take a wild guess that based on our discussions over the years you would not consider me a constructionist,
There are all kinds of valid approaches to jurisprudence, so I have no beef with that.

Something’s not adding up with what Notorious is saying because this is point one of Blackmun’s summary:

“A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”



My Jim Crow point wasn’t as clear as it should have been.

I’m not citing the thinking behind the original decisions, I’m citing the thinking of later Courts who didn’t feel empowered to flip those decisions.

The court of the 1960s felt something in like blatant violation of the 14th Amendment needs to be fixed by Congress, but 10 years later the Court has no problem shoving through a more questionable example.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2018, 08:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I agree on ferocity but I haven't examined his past work in depth.

Tangentially related thought I had last night: Sue Collins is nominally pro-choice yet every signal points to that not being a factor in her vote for Kavanaugh. Yet some think someone pro-life like Roberts will vote to maintain Roe. I can't work out the logic of this dichotomy.
Key distinction: Collins can get fired, Roberts can’t.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2018, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Cynically, I don't think the Janus ruling will remain about 'what the government gets to do.'
I think the proper cynical view of the conservatives on the court is you’ll take the right of private sector to ass-rape the First Amendment out of their cold, dead fingerbones.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2018, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, that's what I was getting at. X = non political union dues, Y = seperate Union PAC dues
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
And my point stands about this not mattering if money ≠ speech.
In theory, a state can pass a more First Amendment friendly set of agency laws and run them up the pole.

I suspect whether a justice in the majority on Janus would back off is directly correlated to their dick quotient.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2018, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think the proper cynical view of the conservatives on the court is you’ll take the right of private sector to ass-rape the First Amendment out of their cold, dead fingerbones.
I'd rather expect that the USC continues to give more First Amendment rights to corporations (“religious freedom” for corporations, money = free speech, etc.).
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Aug 1, 2018 at 08:14 PM. Reason: Fixed bad grammar.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2018, 05:21 PM
 
This is far more likely.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2018, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The conservatives most definitely are doing that. The case you cite is indeed applicable only to public sector unions. But that's not where the game is being played now. Republican controlled state legislatures have been passing "right to work" legislation that is applicable across the board ... not just the public sector. Take a look at this vote on Proposition A going down in my home state of Missouri on Aug. 7. The GOP controlled Missouri legislature has already passed a "right to work" law in Senate Bill No. 19. Proposition A is the opportunity for Missouri voters to either uphold or reject Senate Bill No. 19.

Missouri Proposition A, Right to Work Referendum (August 2018) | Ballotpedia.com

As you can see by the sections highlighted ... this legislation is not just applicable to public sector unions and on top of that explicitly doesn't apply to federal employees.

OAW
The so-called "Right To Work" legislation went down in flames in Missouri last night. A state that Trump won by 19 points. Just goes to show you that GOP legislators aren't always in sync with GOP voters ... because even though the DEMs were solidly against it you don't get a 2-1 vote margin in Missouri on DEM votes alone.

Fueled by more than $15 million in campaign spending and laser-sharp attention from national labor unions, voters solidly rejected an attempt to make Missouri a “right to work” state.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, unofficial results showed the ballot question asking whether the Show-Me State wanted to join 27 others in allowing private-sector workers to not pay dues to a labor organization had flamed out about 2 to 1.


Code:
Missouri Proposition A 3228 of 3228 precincts reporting (100.0%)• More than 50% needed to pass measure Name Votes Pct. Yes - For the measure 452,075 32.5% No - Against the measure. 937,241 67.5%
“We are hopeful that the outcome of today’s election will put an end to attacks on Missouri’s working families and give our state a fresh start at working together to help and support all Missourians,” noted a statement from the We Are Missouri coalition, comprising labor unions and affiliated organizations. “In every corner of the state, voters rebuked the efforts of powerful, out-of-state corporate interests and dark money to control the future of Missouri’s economy.”

Dan Mehan, executive director of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the push by Republicans and business groups who supported the law was not a mistake.

“No miscalculation. It was a deluge of money coming in from out of state that helped them get to $20 million to buy the election,” Mehan said. “We just got blown out.”

From the start, pro-business groups supporting the law failed to keep pace with the millions of dollars that the unions pumped into the referendum. Yard signs, television ads and a radio ad by actor John Goodman — a Missouri native — dominated the campaign. [OAW: And THIS is precisely why the GOP keeps pushing this sort of legislation. To knee-cap labor union's ability to compete when it comes to political campaign spending.]

While supporters of Proposition A said states with similar laws had seen positive job growth, opponents said myriad other factors had played into boosting the business climate in those states. Opponents also said wages in right-to-work states were lower.

“I’ve seen the facts of states that have laws like right to work,” said United Auto Workers union member Michelle Whitley of Wright City. “It’s just not a good thing for our state.”

Whitley told the Post-Dispatch that she and other union members would continue to play defense against similar efforts by lawmakers.

“I don’t think we’ll ever stop fighting,” said Whitley, who works on the pickup and van assembly line at General Motors in Wentzville.

Missouri Democratic Party Chairman Stephen Webber called the push for right to work a “shameless attack on the middle class.”

“Tonight, Missouri voters rejected a top Republican priority and sent a resounding message that we will not leave working people behind,” Webber said.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also got in on the celebration.

"I'm glad to hear Prop A was defeated tonight in Missouri," he said on Twitter. "Right-to-work legislation must be defeated nationwide. We must stand together, beat back union busters, and continue to build and grow the trade union movement in this country."

In 1978, the last time right to work was on a statewide ballot, 60 percent of Missouri voters turned it down.

Despite steep declines in the union workforce, Tuesday’s measure was defeated in both urban and rural areas. Unofficial returns showed just 14 of Missouri’s 114 counties supporting the law.

The proposal was closely watched across the nation after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in late June that public sector workers cannot be compelled to pay fees to unions.

The Missouri vote would have extended that to private companies that have union bargaining agreements.


From the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, unions spent big on fighting what had been then-Gov. Eric Greitens’ signature achievement in his 17-month tenure.

For years, business-friendly Republican lawmakers have tried to move Missouri into the right-to-work column. Greitens’ arrival in January 2017 put the wheels in motion for Tuesday’s vote.

Moving swiftly in Greitens’ fledgling administration, lawmakers approved the right-to-work law and he signed it a month into his term.

But the quick turnaround gave labor unions a window to collect more than 310,000 signatures to put the law before voters.

In the waning days of the 2018 legislative session, Republicans countered by moving the referendum from the November ballot to Tuesday’s primary. Though they said the maneuver was aimed at resolving the debate more quickly, Democrats said the GOP was trying to manipulate the outcome with a typically lower primary voter turnout.


Three campaign funds that supported the referendum — Freedom to Work, Missourians for Freedom to Work and Missourians for Worker Freedom — raised more than $5.6 million.

Greitens, who left office June 1 under the cloud of a scandal, was involved too. His dark money nonprofit, A New Missouri Inc., which was the subject of a recent Missouri Ethics Commission complaint, contributed $2.3 million to the cause.

Despite the vote, Republicans who control the House and Senate could return for their 2019 session and vote again to make Missouri right to work, potentially triggering a repeat of the referendum process.

One right-to-work supporter, Sen. Dave Schatz, R-Sullivan, said it was premature to discuss such a move. In his home county, Franklin, voters opposed the referendum 3 to 1.

“I think what we’ll do is evaluate the outcome of the vote to see what appropriate action will be taken,” Schatz said.

Mehan also said he was unsure if there would be an appetite to make another run at the law next year: “It’s an unfortunate result. We’re getting through tonight and seeing where the political will is.”
Democrats, unions declare victory as 'right to work' loses by wide margin in Missouri | St. Louis Post-Dispatch

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2018, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Key distinction: Collins can get fired, Roberts can’t.
That distinction further highlights how illogical the reality of my observation is.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think the proper cynical view of the conservatives on the court is you’ll take the right of private sector to ass-rape the First Amendment out of their cold, dead fingerbones.
Unless it involves abortion. (See Casey vs the recent Bercerra case)
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2018, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The so-called "Right To Work" legislation went down in flames in Missouri last night. A state that Trump won by 19 points. Just goes to show you that GOP legislators aren't always in sync with GOP voters ... because even though the DEMs were solidly against it you don't get a 2-1 vote margin in Missouri on DEM votes alone.



Democrats, unions declare victory as 'right to work' loses by wide margin in Missouri | St. Louis Post-Dispatch

OAW
They also moved the proposition to the primary instead of the general election. That infuriates me.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2018, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That distinction further highlights how illogical the reality of my observation is.
The logic arises from Collins’ job being to serve her constituents, not herself.

I’ll check out the case!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2018, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The logic arises from Collins’ job being to serve her constituents, not herself.
Unless you have polling handy that Maine is an outlier on abortion, it's pretty safe to say a vast majority of her constituents don't want to see Roe overturned.

I feel like you're making this conversation as tedious as possible. Collins can actually feel blowback for her vote and she doesn't seem concerned. Unless you genuinely think she's doing the will of the people this could mean a few other things: She doesn't care about roe or she doesn't care about getting re-elected.

My point is, if with this theoretical accountability she doesn't seem moved, it can be hard to fathom why Roberts would go against his legal beliefs when he has less accountability. This is not proof of what will happen but perspective to explain why a certain outcome is more possible than you might think.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2018, 07:51 PM
 
Slightly more on topic: The shit the GOP is pulling with Kavanaugh is completely brazen and while Dems can't fight it they're doing a poor job of dragging the GOP for it in the media. I suppose the story isn't sexy enough for them, but doing an end around on the National Archive because they're not fast enough with the added bonus of having GOP lawyers vet Kavanaugh's documents is a serious miscarriage of the vetting process.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2018, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I feel like you're making this conversation as tedious as possible.
No, I made a mistake, and I’m tired of having my unyielding efforts at good faith doing nothing but get me insulted.

I’m done.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2018, 03:50 PM
 
No one is chattering about Kavanaugh? 40,000 documents missing? Time enough to review? Will he pardon the president? Will he repeal RoeVWade? Does it matter since Republicans have it in the bag? Wait, what about those rogue women senators from ME and AK?

I thought it interesting yesterday that Ted Cruz, in perhaps an attempt to make Kavanaugh seem like a moderate candidate any dem would get behind, compared Kavanaugh to Garland. "They agree 98% of the time!"

Made me wonder why the Rs never even had a hearing for Garland, if he's so much like their candidate... <cough>

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...rsM/story.html
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2018, 04:54 PM
 
Am I crazy or this guy wayyy to the right of Gorsuch?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2018, 05:14 PM
 
Seems to be.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2018, 07:56 PM
 
Oh, I'd need a legal expert to be clear, but it looks like he may have lied in testimony back in 2006? About working on certain programs, possibly about getting hacked Democratic messages (Did you know this happened?! I didn't.)
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2018, 07:15 PM
 


The people running the simulation are really ****ing with left right now.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2018, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Oh, I'd need a legal expert to be clear, but it looks like he may have lied in testimony back in 2006? About working on certain programs, possibly about getting hacked Democratic messages (Did you know this happened?! I didn't.)
Stame from Manny Miranda
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2018, 11:35 AM
 
If you think the circus is bad now, wait until Trump nominates Amy Barrett, especially if it is to replace Ginsburg.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2018, 02:20 PM
 
"I'm so ethical I opened documents that weren't mine and snooped around to see if the dems were being unethical"
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2018, 01:27 PM
 
God forbid someone get their hands dirty to obtain evidence against criminals.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2018, 02:13 PM
 
"I know, I mean it's not as if showing my lack of ethics would taint the evidence, or cause some to ponder that I planted it in the first place."
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2018, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
God forbid someone get their hands dirty to obtain evidence against criminals.
I assume you're taking this position on a situational, partisan basis, but the constitution LITERALLY protects Americans from illegal search and seizure of evidence.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2018, 12:24 AM
 
I didn't post the brief brouhaha last week about an anonymous accusation sent to Feinstein about Kavanaugh, but in the fallout afterwards the accuser has decided to come forward.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.75cef0855bb8
Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.

In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.
#MeToo had come for Kavanaugh. I guess the questions are:
• Does Trump attack the accuser on twitter (they've done a good job of preventing him from tweeting about Manafort so far)
• Do they hold a hearing on the matter? Does the woman agree to it?
• Do Murkowski and Collins show any uncertainty about Kavanaugh?

So far the only thing I'm certain of is the second person in the accusation, Mark Judge is a vile piece of shit. His original statement was that he 'had no recollection." He was a blackout drunk at the time. He's got some pretty... unique views on women since.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2018, 06:43 PM
 
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/statu...83926111477761
Interesting demographic breakdown in this NBC/WSJ poll.

Kavanaugh's net support among GOP men has gone UP points since his accuser went public.

Among Dem women it's gone DOWN 14 points.

It's also fallen among independent men and women.


Patriarchy digging in its heels.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2018, 12:25 AM
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. It appears Kavanaugh has an eye for the finer things in life. Or in his intern pool, anyway. Guardian story.
A top professor at Yale Law School who strongly endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” privately told a group of law students last year that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models” and would provide advice to students about their physical appearance if they wanted to work for him, the Guardian has learned.
Chua advised the same student Rubenfeld spoke to that she ought to dress in an “outgoing” way for her interview with Kavanaugh, and that the student should send Chua pictures of herself in different outfits before going to interview. The student did not send the photos.
note: the Yale professors in the article are unrelated to Kavanaugh's attempted-rape accuser. I made that assumption somehow, and had to read much of the article before realizing this is separate.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2018, 08:08 AM
 
Sadly, in the end, none of it matters. Kavanaugh is a shoo-in regardless. Republicans have decided that they will fall on their swords, if that's what it takes, to ensure a conservative majority on SCOTUS for the foreseeable future. It's a prize with long-term consequences that is worth possibly losing the House, and maybe even the Senate, in the short term. There are some very shiny gold rings working their way through the courts to SCOTUS that make getting a reliable vote like Kavanaugh on the high court imperative.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2018, 10:16 AM
 
Trump finally attacked the accuser. He thinks she should have gone to the FBI when it happened.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2018, 03:51 PM
 
That’s the voice of toxic patriarchy.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2018, 05:35 PM
 
Well, in this case more the imbecilic patriarchy, given why would the FBI be involved in the case in 80s?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2018, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, in this case more the imbecilic patriarchy, given why would the FBI be involved in the case in 80s?
Saying she should have called the police would actually make sense. The FBI? Not so much.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2018, 02:58 PM
 

     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2018, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Saying she should have called the police would actually make sense.
And, still express ignorance of, or lack of caring for, the very real issues that convince women to not report their attacks.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2018, 12:47 PM
 
It wouldn’t have mattered what male judge Trump nominated, this was going to happen. I wonder what the left will pull out when Trump nominates Judge Barrett to replace Ginsberg.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2018, 01:02 PM
 
A 2nd accuser has spoken up. I do not recall anyone stating their political leanings.

Are you implying they should be given the Anita Hill treatment, followed by a rubber-stamp confirmation?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:00 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,