Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Surely there are fair judges with a clean past in America that both sides of the isle would be happy to vote through?
Anyone following this Kavanaugh supreme court senate hearing? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Otis
- Start date
The republicans will only be happy with a Trump puppet who will do anything, no matter how immoral, to protect him from impeachment or future criminal charges.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And, for the religious nuts who think Trump was sent by god ( they actually say that ), because he wants end abortions and reverse the current high court ruling ( Roe case ).
Nope. Remember Merrick Garland? The republicans dared Obama to nominate him "Obama could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man." (Garland is very conservative).
5 days later Obama nominated him. The Reps refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever".
itsabuzzard
Well-Known Member
Not sure about that. „Drinking game“ is one quote from Kavanaugh, and „devil‘s triangle“ is the name of a sex act, who‘s meaning I was trying to explain. Although also mentioned by Kavanaugh in his diary. Two separate things. In actual fact, there was one apostrophe too few, as there should have been one in „devils“. Would I pass my English O Level nowadays?
Otis
Well-Known Member
itsabuzzard
Well-Known Member
That would surely depend on how many devils there are in a "devils triangle". Can't say if you'd pass your O level - do they even bother with grammar these days?
Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
'who's meaning'?
I’m not sure how to say that.. the meaning of which..?
itsabuzzard
Well-Known Member
Stop digging.
Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
Otis
Well-Known Member
You could say 'whose meaning' rather than 'who's meaning', though I'm not sure that's quite right either.
You could say 'whose meaning' rather than 'who's meaning', though I'm not sure that's quite right either.
Ask itsabuzzard, he should know....
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Going by his response and body language I'd suggest Kavanaugh has something to hide. Crossed arms, voice wavering, drinking lots of water, attacking questioners and avoiding answering - he just came across as disingenuous and very nervous. But I'm just as annoyed with the committee on both sides - neither seem to care about the actual validity of the claims, just the political advantage they can get from them. An average person would be having these claims thoroughly investigated as a matter of course, but with a job interview for one of the most important and influential positions in America not necessary apparently.
I wonder if they could be investigated anyway, even if he was confirmed? As has been said if it was me I'd be wanting an investigation to clear my name and so I could sue for defamation.
Rep's want him for his conservative views on abortion, contraception and religious freedom* rather than his Trump support (which they couldn't care less about really and I think most of them would like him to go away. Trump wants him because apparently he won't charge him with a crime.
*provided you're a hardcore Christian
I wonder if they could be investigated anyway, even if he was confirmed? As has been said if it was me I'd be wanting an investigation to clear my name and so I could sue for defamation.
Rep's want him for his conservative views on abortion, contraception and religious freedom* rather than his Trump support (which they couldn't care less about really and I think most of them would like him to go away. Trump wants him because apparently he won't charge him with a crime.
*provided you're a hardcore Christian
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Thing I really don't understand is why are the nominations made by the president? I thought the whole point of the three branches was independence, so how is it independent if one section gets to choose the members of another? Surely it should be up to the Law Society (or the US equivalent) to nominate?
Imagine that a tragedy occurred whereby all or most of the Supreme Court were killed - the president at that time would get to chose the ENTIRE Supreme Court, and thus there would be no independence between the Judicial and Executive branches.
Another is the life term - you can have someone deciding the legal basis of the entire country when they many not be fit mentally to do so anymore. Many are in their 80's and it has been the case in the past where the judges assistants etc have had to effectively make a judgement based on what they think the judge would do because the judge is incapable of doing it themselves.
Should be that each presidential term sees the longest serving member of the Supreme Court having to step down so that each President gets at least one pick. They can then be re-nominated during the next Presidential term if desired.
Imagine that a tragedy occurred whereby all or most of the Supreme Court were killed - the president at that time would get to chose the ENTIRE Supreme Court, and thus there would be no independence between the Judicial and Executive branches.
Another is the life term - you can have someone deciding the legal basis of the entire country when they many not be fit mentally to do so anymore. Many are in their 80's and it has been the case in the past where the judges assistants etc have had to effectively make a judgement based on what they think the judge would do because the judge is incapable of doing it themselves.
Should be that each presidential term sees the longest serving member of the Supreme Court having to step down so that each President gets at least one pick. They can then be re-nominated during the next Presidential term if desired.
Last edited:
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Certainly no fan of the Clinton's and when they nominated Hillary I thought they'd picked the one candidate who could lose to Trump. Just so unlikeable and smarmy, giving this impression of superiority over everyone.
In terms of sexually predatory I'd say Bill and Don are probably about equal and would abuse their power in a heartbeat.
In terms of sexually predatory I'd say Bill and Don are probably about equal and would abuse their power in a heartbeat.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What about Kennedy?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
He's dead.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
And what? He was a sexual predator, corrupt and a war mongerer. Trump is a Boy Scout compared to him and yet we are supposed to believe the former was the epitome of the American Dream and the latter the devil incarnate
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
All of this is true. He's got a legacy he doesn't deserve because he was assassinated, even though he did do some good things in terms of civil rights. Getting killed was the best thing to ever happen to him in terms of how people remember him. Same with Jimmy Dean - shite actor IMO.
As for the Trump/Kennedy comparison, Trump isn't a boy scout. He's a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, poor-hating, corrupt, narcissistic fantasist liar and with his comments/tweets on NK, China etc it's almost a miracle war hasn't broken out yet.
The only thing for me that gives him even a modicum of an excuse is that he has the intellect of a 10 year old and the emotional capabilities of a three year old. His policies aren't necessarily down to hate just utter stupidity from a privileged, sheltered upbringing.
In some ways Trump COULD be a great thing to happen to America long term, as he's showing that wealth and privilege, especially those that are inherited, are not indicators of ability, trustworthiness or judgement and might help them see a bit further from their absolute dedication to capitalism.
As for the Trump/Kennedy comparison, Trump isn't a boy scout. He's a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, poor-hating, corrupt, narcissistic fantasist liar and with his comments/tweets on NK, China etc it's almost a miracle war hasn't broken out yet.
The only thing for me that gives him even a modicum of an excuse is that he has the intellect of a 10 year old and the emotional capabilities of a three year old. His policies aren't necessarily down to hate just utter stupidity from a privileged, sheltered upbringing.
In some ways Trump COULD be a great thing to happen to America long term, as he's showing that wealth and privilege, especially those that are inherited, are not indicators of ability, trustworthiness or judgement and might help them see a bit further from their absolute dedication to capitalism.
Otis
Well-Known Member
What a thoroughly disgusting and despicable man Donald Trump truly is.
Doing a speech mocking this woman who was sexually abused.
I haven't seen one person yet come out and say she wasn't sexually abused. The only doubt cast is whether it was Kavanaugh and his friend.
Everyone else has shown restraint in their comments on this Dr. Ford's attack, including Brett Kavanaugh himself, but there you have Trump openly mocking this woman in front of a cheering audience.
Asboluteley disgraceful behaviour. What a scummy individual he really is.
Awful. You all really need to see the footage airing on the Beeb Breakfast show right now.
Doing a speech mocking this woman who was sexually abused.
I haven't seen one person yet come out and say she wasn't sexually abused. The only doubt cast is whether it was Kavanaugh and his friend.
Everyone else has shown restraint in their comments on this Dr. Ford's attack, including Brett Kavanaugh himself, but there you have Trump openly mocking this woman in front of a cheering audience.
Asboluteley disgraceful behaviour. What a scummy individual he really is.
Awful. You all really need to see the footage airing on the Beeb Breakfast show right now.
Otis
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Just heard this on the radio. Pretty shocking. Playing on the fact that she only had one beer without even considering the possibility that the one beer had been spiked. I can’t understand how any self respecting woman could vote for this idiot, even before his latest rant. Or any self respecting man for that matter.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Or anyone with more than an ounce of morality.
As I said before, my cat was savagely attacked by a dog and killed in front of my eyes. It is ingrained in my memory forever.
Can't tell you what time of day it was though, or what day, or even what time of the year, or in fact, what year.
Trump has no idea what he is talking about. The traumatic incident itself gets cast in stone, but the periphery facts become hazy and fade.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I know what you mean. I was unfortunate enough to witness someone’s death in a tragic accident some years ago and the only thing I remember in any detail from that event is the look on the guys face the split second before it happened. Don’t want to go into details but as you say a specific detail of a trauma from a traumatic experience gets ingrained in your memory and everything else becomes inconsequential to the point of irrelevant.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
This all is supposed to have happened decades ago.
Shouldn't there be some Statute of Limitations on these claims?
If you don't report something within a reasonable time, you should lose the right to.
What possible legitimate reason is there for waiting so long?
How can anyone remember the details of something so remote?
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yeah, tough one, but do get your point and there surely comes a time when nothing is proveable and is just one word against another.
It is a difficult one though. With this Christine Ford I can only assume seeing Brett Kavanaugh being up for one the very top jobs in the whole country stirred up all the old memories and feelings for her.
There is also the situation that many don't want to be reminded of terrible events and try to keep it in the recesses of their minds.
Can't speak for Dr Ford, but can only assume she felt it a civic duty. As I say though, some sort of a statute of limitations does sound a sensible way to go forwards, otherwise how can you defend yourself and how can you stop any old mud from sticking?
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
What is the term though? With limitations you could see Rolf Harris and his ilk walking free.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yep. That thought had certainly crossed my mind and what happens in those sorts of cases (Harris and Savile) is that someone comes forward and you then feel brave enough to come forwards yourself, having previously been too scared to do so for fear of ridicule and non belief in your story.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
A lot of women don't report these things for fear of the type of response that has been seen here. Not being believed and / or being blamed.
There's also very low conviction rates and having to go through the trauma of reliving it numerous times when being questioned or cross examined.
In reality in most cases there is no need fora statute of limitations as reporting to the police years later would lead to zero action.
Saying all that there is a big difference between not reporting something for those reasons and not mentioning it when you see the perpetrator moving towards becoming one of the most powerful people in the country with responsibility for setting laws regarding issues like this.
The fact that during their 'investigation' the FBI have not been allowed to speak to the victim, the accused or any of the witnesses says a lot about how thorough it has been.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Not thorough at all despite some senators saying it has been.
Apparently 12 witnesses that were put forwards by Ford's team have not been spoken to.
I wouldn't call that thorough at all.
He's going to get approved isn't he. Seems obvious.
