The Shrine

I have to admit, I'm watching this all pretty sourly at this point. It's not even necessarily the allegations of Dr. Ford, or even the way the probe is pretty clearly turning into a sham inquiry.

It's how full of absolute bullshit Judge Kavanaugh has clearly been over his yearbooks and his college drinking, and his absolute lack of a judicial temperament. (To those who might respond that I don't have a huge platform to criticize anyone on temperament - no doubt, but I'm also not advocating myself as a candidate for the *United States Supreme Court*).

For one, his explanations of "boof", "Renate club" and so on just reek of bullshit for anyone who actually went to high school in North America, which I am pretty sure we all did. I am sorry, but everyone who went to high school in North America knows what yearbook inscriptions concerning the local easy-to-ride girl look like. For what it's worth, that is not a judgment on Renate Schroeder at all - it's up to every woman to determine her own sexuality - but when your high school classmates are speaking out about what a dick you were to this girl who liked to go out and get laid and did you the favor of sleeping with your dipshit ass in the first place, and *then* you go lie about it too, that seems like a bad look for any judge, much less a Supreme Court nominee.

For another - concerning his college drinking - I'm sorry, but we had Dekes at Stanford. And one of the years I was there, they lost their university-approved housing because a pledge got drunk and fell off a second-story railing, so one of them got housed in our dorm. He was quite a nice guy and very affable and I liked him in the let's-hang-out-and-talk-shit sense - but he was also unquestionably the guy who was proud of having the Kim Kardashian sex tape on tap and wanting to show it to anyone who was remotely interested, or not at all interested, for that matter. Generally speaking, anyone suggesting that the Dekes were fine, upstanding young men known for sexual propriety and sobriety from alcohol would have been laughed at so hard that somebody *else* would have fallen off a fucking balcony and gotten sent to the hospital, so this effort from Kavanaugh and others to paint his aggressive, blackout drinking as no-big-thing also has that familiar reek of bullshit.

It is utterly clear to me at this point that Judge Kavanaugh, quite apart from his rather ugly and dangerous views on corporate power, eminent domain, and other judicial tramplings of smaller, lesser-known Americans, is at bare minimum lying his ass off about the little things.

And people who lie about the little things on a regular basis - well, these are also a much bigger risk for lying about the big things, taking bribes, and abusing power generally.

Of course, the modern Republican position all along has been the usual unbridled, violent, unhinged rage. I've literally seen people quoting Bible verses in his support as if he were Samson or Solomon, not this jackass former-drunken-frat-boy-turned-servant-of-corporate-power. And of course, they're up in arms about how this man's "life has been destroyed" - this already-upper-middle-class, intensely privileged white American male who went to Yale and is in no danger of losing his reasonably lucrative present judicial position whether or not he's confirmed -so as a reward for his "suffering", whether or not he is confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh will receive more than $600,000 from a GoFundMe page dedicated to righting these terrible vile wrongs against him.

That shit blows my mind - the Republican Party seems to go *out of its way* to reward bad behavior these days.

One way or another, America is badly losing its moral compass.

I'm not sure it's a stretch to say that it's easier at this point for bad men and women to achieve success in America than good ones - and this will be decades to come that this liar will be making decisions that affect the fate of every American, and probably really terrible ones in the vein of Citizens United.

</rant></sorrynotsorry></thanksforlistening>

What I don't get is who does he think he's fooling claiming he's a boy scout and totally impartial. I don't think the accusations against him really matter since it's hard to prove but the way he acted seems to suggest he definitely lacks temperament to be impartial. Now, I guess it really doesn't matter because the Supreme Court was never about being impartial or people wouldn't be trying to hard to get one of their guys on the bench if that guy is supposed to actually be neutral. I'm not seeing how having 5 Conservatives on the court is as big a deal as people claim because if it is that just means next time Democrats get control of everything they can change the court size to 50 judges (the number of people on court is a legislation). The only people who claim it's a big deal seems to be the guy claiming the court is impartial so you can't just cheese your way through it, even though clearly you got justices put there via shady methods.

Now I don't think we'll actually see court size changed because the Supreme Court really doesn't actually do very much and they don't seem to dare to go blatantly against popular opinion, and if they do I think they'll just be exposed for being a political body that has no actual enforcement power. Kali was talking about the Congress needs to do their job, and if the Congress does their job I see no way for the Supreme Court to usurp their power. For that matter if the Congress is messed up and say passed laws the legalize slavery I sure don't see the Supreme Court having the power to actually keep them check. If the Congress don't do their job I guess anybody can claim whatever they want and it's not any worse 5 unelected guys are deciding things compared to Trump.


I think it might be a good thing if this ended up overhauling the Supreme Court. They only hear about a case a week and they usually don't actually hear anything important because they don't want the responsibility. Half of the guys are likely senile and have no idea what's going on in any modern issue (e.g. they rejected the gerrymandering case because they literally didn't understand the computer models for fair(er) districts) even if they're totally non-partisan.

Don wrote:What I don't get is who does he think he's fooling claiming he's a boy scout and totally impartial.

Word, my ninja. I haven't even read the rest of your post yet, but this sentence deserves a cheer.

(...it's the Republican base, though. That's who he's fooling. Seriously, you should see the full-throated defenses of him I have seen. It's astonishing to watch.)

Don wrote: I'm not seeing how having 5 Conservatives on the court is as big a deal as people claim because if it is that just means next time Democrats get control of everything they can change the court size to 50 judges (the number of people on court is a legislation).

Now I don't think we'll actually see court size changed because the Supreme Court really doesn't actually do very much and they don't seem to dare to go blatantly against popular opinion...

Yeah, that's a really seriously uphill battle. I mean, yeah, it was six originally and Congress sets it, but I highly doubt that it's going to change in our lifetimes - and in any case, that could backfire too. Let's say the Democrats win, and increase the Court size increases to eleven, and appoint two new justices - and then in thirty years a bunch of retirements happen, and the Republicans pack the Court again, then it gets even harder to restore any balance.

I see the main problem as an increasing epidemic of greed and ignorance - it's just endemic in America these days. I live outside of California now, and I'm utterly shocked at how acceptable and endemic white racism is outside of the liberal big cities. And there are actually an increasing number of people in America who literally think the Earth is flat - I've met several around here, and you cannot even reach them, you tell them to take an international plane trip and experience the layout and curvature of the Earth firsthand, and nothing. It is mindblowing. Indeed I'm ready to throw shit at the NCAA at this point, not because they are corrupt and bribe the players and lie about it - I honestly think if anything that the players ought to experience some of the rewards that these disgusting college-sports cash cows make - but because one of their main functions is supposed to be maintaining a minimum standard of education that allows athletes to prosper as citizens too, and yet we have Paul Pierce up there talking about how "everybody knows the Earth is flat". I don't care how much money he makes, our college system fucking failed that man, and he is failing America as a result.

I think a lot of Republicans are defending this guy because they either are, or wish they could be, doing the exact same thing he is doing. I don't know what the right answer is. This country has a serious vein of greedy, nasty ignorance, and it's getting worse and not better.

I don't have time to post about this I'm late for my devils triangle. By which I mean I'm going to be playing triangle in a rock band. Or whatever equally plausible horse shit Kavanaugh said it was.

While I understand the Left has done a pretty good job whipping up the useful idiots during this circus -- your personal appraisal of how much the man drank in highschool / college is a non-factor 3 decades later to the man or the position. While I am sure your inferences and conspiracies from his yearbook are neat; the FBI didnt find anything...and god forbid any of us are judged for our yearbook comments.

This is dumb. Kavanaugh still being confirmed is the only thing that gives me some hope for America and sanity.

kali o. wrote:While I understand the Left has done a pretty good job whipping up the useful idiots during this circus -- your personal appraisal of how much the man drank in highschool / college is a non-factor 3 decades later to the man or the position. While I am sure your inferences and conspiracies from his yearbook are neat; the FBI didnt find anything...and god forbid any of us are judged for our yearbook comments.

This is dumb. Kavanaugh still being confirmed is the only thing that gives me some hope for America and sanity.

That's probably because you're still an evil man after all.

But I made a promise to myself to start less shit when I came back this time, so I won't waste a lot of time belaboring the point.

Seriously - what about this "gives you hope"?

I should know better than to ask, but I'm always curious as to how the thought processes of evil actually work.

Despite the manufactured outrage and countless allegations (all unproven) tossed at the man - the Dems, supported by the 24/7 MSM propaganda machine -- failed to derail the nomination. Sanity, and intellect, prevailed. That gives me hope.

So, the entire thing that gives you hope is that the Democrats lost.

I mean, after all the imaginings you have encouraged of you as some kind of uber-wealthy supervillain, capable of "having us all killed" without consequence - it's going to be so sad to me if you just turn out to be this utterly uninspiring, thoroughly average right-wing troll.

Replay wrote:So, the entire thing that gives you hope is that the Democrats lost.

That's not even close to what I said. Would you like to try again?

Not really, because I can already predict how the conversation is going to go. I'm going to point out the reams of evidence that Kavanaugh is at minimum lying about the small details, and in response you're going to pretend it all doesn't exist and call it a conspiracy - probably because that concept has gotten you vast mileage in debates against me over the years, even if you don't recognize that nobody else here seems to be on your side with this one and it won't play all that well this time around. I'm bored with the idea already.

In any case, the outrage is hardly manufactured.

The FBI probe was utterly neutered, apparently at the White House's request.

Indeed, many witnesses have reported being rebuffed by the FBI when they tried to come forward with relevant information.

Even Ford herself has apparently been barred from further interview with the agency over the probe. How do you have a legitimate probe when law enforcement is barred from further talks with the accuser?

I don't care if Kavanaugh was a blackout drunk in high school and college - I remember walking around my dorm taking swigs from a bottle of Bacardi 151 one day at Stanford, for God's sake. But I wouldn't pretend it did me a great deal of good, nor do I see a reason to lie about it or misrepresent it the way he has been misrepresenting himself.

I could care less if he was screwing the local goodtime gal, either - most American high school males generally do, given half a chance. But fucking her and then talking shit about her, which several of his high school classmates have alleged - Lord above, I knew a lot of people like that in high school and as a young man, and I sure wouldn't want them on the Supreme Court. It would be one thing if it seemed like it had changed, but instead he's making up a bunch of nonsense - and given the other allegations, I care about whether or not it is potentially a larger pattern of disrespect towards women.

For someone who usually insists on calling a spade a spade, your decision to support a bunch of obvious dissembling and bad behavior looks quite curious here.

I know a lot of women who are very, very sad about this right now, Kal. This is likely to cost you all in November and 2020. I know a *lot* of people right now who are about ready to hold their nose and vote in any manner that seems likely to staunch the bleeding from this horrorshow, which is exactly what did not happen in 2016. You won't get another softball like Hillary lobbed you two years ago, and in an era where Republicans can't even win the popular vote, you may want to think about that.

Shrinweck wrote:I don't have time to post about this I'm late for my devils triangle. By which I mean I'm going to be playing triangle in a rock band. Or whatever equally plausible horse shit Kavanaugh said it was.

I lol'ed! Boof boof!

Those small details you claim Kavanaugh is lying about (or more appropriately, you've been led to believe so) don't actually matter. They are literally meaningless (I also don't care if Kavanaugh secretly likes anal).

In fact, here is an unpopular opinion. If we pretend Fords allegation was credible and corroborated (reminder: it isnt) -- it STILL wouldnt matter.

The actions of a teen do not reflect who we become later in life. As a society, we understand that and that is why we seal / expunge juvenile records.

What is fascinating to me is that you of all people, so fond of your conspiracies, can't see the MSM bullshit that is colouring your conclusions. Just 10 years ago, no reputable news agency would have run half the stories they did for this circus.

Oh and PS - I *suspect* this nonsense will galvanize not only the GOP base but also the independents. Red wave seems likely. I think the public recognizes bullshit when they see it. But maybe I am an optimist.

Boof!

Boof boof boof.

Boof boof boof boof!

Sorry, feeling a lil' gassy tonight.

Replay wrote: Yeah, that's a really seriously uphill battle. I mean, yeah, it was six originally and Congress sets it, but I highly doubt that it's going to change in our lifetimes - and in any case, that could backfire too. Let's say the Democrats win, and increase the Court size increases to eleven, and appoint two new justices - and then in thirty years a bunch of retirements happen, and the Republicans pack the Court again, then it gets even harder to restore any balance.

If Supreme Court becomes an extension to the political process then it's governed by whatever keeps party in power. I don't really see Supreme Court being this lasting impartial arbiter that we should respect as if it's the Jedi Council. At least recently the court mostly yields to a combination of popular opinion and whoever's currently in charge. Sure they might rule a few things against the norm but if they make a political statement people will see through that and they have no power to actually enforce anything and can be trivially circumvented by packing the court. As far as I can tell Supreme Court at least pretends it's impartial and that actually limits what they can do, and if they stopped pretending to be impartial they hold considerably less power than whatever party that currently controls the executive/legislative chamber so it's not like they can abuse power worse than what already happens.

kali o. wrote:In fact, here is an unpopular opinion. If we pretend Fords allegation was credible and corroborated (reminder: it isnt) -- it STILL wouldnt matter.

Actually, her therapist's notes from 2012 and her husband's, family's, and friends' testimony both support the idea that she began to discuss the alleged rape as early as 2012. Apparently this won't make it into the FBI probe, though.

kali o. wrote:The actions of a teen do not reflect who we become later in life. As a society, we understand that and that is why we seal / expunge juvenile records.

Not universally, not anymore. Or did you miss it when California repealed its statute of limitations for the prosecution of rape recently?

The era where serious crimes from decades ago are just forgotten about because of the statute is ending, Kal. A glimmer of possible understanding is reaching my silly little mind, though...

What did you do when you were a teenager, Kali, that has you so keen to insist that all crimes committed by minors are forgiven and forgotten after a few years of adulthood?

Did you rape one of your classmates too?

a) everything you listed stems from her - so why do I care? Are you claiming Kavanaugh was unknown in 2012?

b) Kavanaugh is not accused of rape, by Ford or Ramirez. Why are you bringing that up?

c) Ive been a good sport and ignored your repeated attacks on me, which are in every single post you direct at me. You are a cunt hair away from me ceasing to pretend to not notice.

kali o. wrote:c) Ive been a good sport and ignored your repeated attacks on me, which are in every single post you direct at me. You are a cunt hair away from me ceasing to pretend to not notice.

Right to the screenshot folder. Don't you threaten me.

What did you do? I must have hit a real nerve. Did you rape somebody? Beat up a minority? Steal a bunch of money?

Replay wrote:
Right to the screenshot folder. Don't you threaten me.

What did you do? I must have hit a real nerve. Did you rape somebody? Beat up a minority? Steal a bunch of money?

...lol. Yup. Me and Kavanaugh were serial rapists together...you caught me Detective.

Nice to see you are still building that court case.

Uh huh. Are we at the point of the big, scary supervillain "ceasing to pretend not to notice" yet?

What'd ya do, Kal?

You responded with quite intemperate anger towards a very simple question, to which most people would have simply replied "nothing" or "I got caught shoplifting" or some other really pretty innocuous and meaningless response.

So what did you do? Why is your response so off base from what a normal and not-sociopathic human being would have easily said?

I actually didn't intend for things to get here at all - but genuine, actual evil is an absolute irritant to me. I cannot tolerate its presence nor ignore it, apparently.

Hence, why we come to conflict again and again.

What did you do?

You let that sound of crickets there aid your thought process, old pal. Get at me when you have something substantive - a denial, another vaguely menacing statement, anything really.

----------------

In the meantime, I really had planned for this thread to just be a big vent, but now I actually am inspired to action.

Since I would imagine most people haven't seen it yet, I'm actually going to post some video of Dr. Ford's opening statements.



I would recommend that if people have not seen it yet - I hadn't, myself - that you all should actually watch it. It's difficult to watch, and while I am hardly a forensic expert, her eyes are clear and pointed straight ahead and her voice is full of pain, but strong. I have seen and heard the same in friends I have counselled through difficult times, and it certainly strikes me as credible enough to require further investigation.

At bare minimum, it's worth a watch. Again, this decision is going to affect every single one of us for decades to come, so I definitely think now is the time for action, if any.

I'll be calling all three of my Congresspeople's offices tomorrow and informing them that I will be voting against, protesting, and soliciting votes against anyone who votes to confirm Kavanaugh without further investigation.

Oh, and here's one last little bit of information for you, Kali - since you truly seem to believe Kavanaugh represents some kind of victory over the Democrats:

Apparently, he was instrumental in getting the Vince Foster death investigation sidelined on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/my-bat ... pritchard/
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/ ... ter-842530


Chew on that for a bit. Chew, chew chew. I'm chewing. Goes down slow, greasy, oily, and full of gristle - but I feel full, for sure.

Ford is credible but neither were on trial here and it was always pretty clear that they weren't going to find actual evidence on something that happened 30 years ago. What I thought odd is how you got a guy going on some rage rant about a Democratic plot and then later say he's totally impartial and will judge fairly. I remember there's saying that it's not the crime but the coverup that gets you trouble for political stuff, and I thought it's blatantly obvious that he was lying about his impartiality and temperament. Again, I don't think it actually matters very much if he privately believed there's a Democratic plot out to get him. Trump says that all the time. Just don't say it and then immediately say you're totally impartial. What does he even have to gain? Being a raging alcoholic doesn't mean you're a sexual predator. He could have said something like "I don't always remember everything after having too much to drink but I assure you I'd never be too drunk to not remember sexually assaulting someone" and they can probably skip the whole FBI investigation thing since it's mostly a coverup, but even if it was a serious investigation at most they'd have just interviewed people close to him to see if he had too much to drink, and if he admits that he did drink too much there wouldn't be any more from that. I was reading one of the Bush was asked what does he have to say about doing drugs when he was young and he answered "well back when I was young and dumb, I did dumb things" and it's pretty much impossible to follow up from that since doing dumb things when you're young rightfully shouldn't haunt you later if it's not a crime.

Thank you, Oracle, that about sums it up. Welcome to the era of clown fiesta.

The issue for me, Don, is that a job interview is not a trial, and is always held to a different standard than "innocent until proven guilty".

As Chris Rock noted back when Marion Barry "smoked crack and got his job back" - "How did that happen? I mean, you can't smoke crack at *McDonald's* and get your job back! They're not going to trust you around those Happy Meals!"

A job interview is a vote of confidence, not a trial. Many fully qualified people are denied jobs in America every day just because one of the interviewers doesn't like the interviewee's personality.

Why is Kavanaugh exempt from that standard?

An interesting article, asking how the Kavanaughs - between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt at the time they secured the funding to purchase their $1,225,000 home - managed to pull off what would have been impossible for any non-connected American family.


https://medium.com/@gregolear/money-lin ... 3aaaf31b04

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote:“Since our marriage in 2004, we have not owned stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other similar financial investments outside of our retirement accounts.”

Fraud And Bankruptcy Lawyer Tim Hogan wrote:“Kavanaugh has a $245,000 unexplained payment in his home closing documents. There you go. I’m a bankruptcy lawyer who hunts frauds for a living. This guy’s documents look fraudulent to me.”

The options basically seem to be:
1. Family funds
2. High-stakes gambling windfalls
3. A massive political bribe

So, in just the last few posts, you have Mental parroting a Dem talking point and accusing, baselessly, Kavanaugh of bribery and fraud.

Let's drag that down to reality for a second:

1. It's not a job interview, its a criminal accusation. Period. Due process exists for a reason, and it is what makes our western society not only more evolved than others, but objectively better. Due process exists in EVERY facet of our society (including "job interviews"), despite the required proof differing depending on circumstance. In this case, there was ZERO corroborating proof -- just an accusation. Not only that, the allegation was meaningless and of no consequence to the individual 30 years later nor the position. If that is the new standard, say hello to mob justice and effectively giving each individual the ability to derail anything they want. That does not work -- on any level. We have seen the effects in colleges with Title IX. Same excuse used -- it's not a criminal investigation (yet always ends up in court and ruins lives).

2. Mental goes on to accuse Kavanaugh of either Fraud or Bribery. In order to justify doing so, he references an opinion piece on the blog site Medium, which further references "expert" Tim Hogan, who is a rabid Lefty that spends all day on Twitter retweeting "The Resistance". Mental so flippantly tosses out this accusation, based on (yet again) ZERO evidence. This is a prime example of Fake News and, if you were at all confused about the term, this is a good lesson.

I don't know where most of you stand on a lot of issues -- we don't always share our real opinions. But I will say this...people like Mental....they are sick. They lack the reasoning, critical thinking skills and logic required to properly work through complex issues and disseminate propaganda (fake news). Most of you do not have that excuse. As a responsible fellow human being, you owe it to society to apply critical thinking and time to any issue you chose to care about (if you can't invest the time and thinking, don't have an opinion). You owe it to the world to utilize your intellect for the greater good -- be honest in your bias and do your best to filter them.

We won't always agree on everything. Sometimes two+ solutions or explanations exist for a single problem ...or perhaps some issues exceed our personal knowledge & capabilities but we work through as best we can. That's fine. What's not fine is when we lower the bar so far that our opinions are indistinguishable from the confused rantings and inevitable violence of the mentally ill - people we should be rolling our eyes at or calling the authorities. You are better than that and we owe it to each other to be better.

Say no to violence and anti-intellectualism.

kali o. wrote:So, in just the last few posts, you have Mental parroting a Dem talking point and accusing, baselessly, Kavanaugh of bribery and fraud.

Let's drag that down to reality for a second:

1. It's not a job interview, its a criminal accusation. Period. Due process exists for a reason, and it is what makes our western society not only more evolved than others, but objectively better. Due process exists in EVERY facet of our society (including "job interviews"), despite the required proof differing depending on circumstance. In this case, there was ZERO corroborating proof -- just an accusation. Not only that, the allegation was meaningless and of no consequence to the individual 30 years later nor the position. If that is the new standard, say hello to mob justice and effectively giving each individual the ability to derail anything they want. That does not work -- on any level. We have seen the effects in colleges with Title IX. Same excuse used -- it's not a criminal investigation (yet always ends up in court and ruins lives).

2. Mental goes on to accuse Kavanaugh of either Fraud or Bribery. In order to justify doing so, he references an opinion piece on the blog site Medium, which further references "expert" Tim Hogan, who is a rabid Lefty that spends all day on Twitter retweeting "The Resistance". Mental so flippantly tosses out this accusation, based on (yet again) ZERO evidence. This is a prime example of Fake News and, if you were at all confused about the term, this is a good lesson.

I don't know where most of you stand on a lot of issues -- we don't always share our real opinions. But I will say this...people like Mental....they are sick. They lack the reasoning, critical thinking skills and logic required to properly work through complex issues and disseminate propaganda (fake news). Most of you do not have that excuse. As a responsible fellow human being, you owe it to society to apply critical thinking and time to any issue you chose to care about (if you can't invest the time and thinking, don't have an opinion). You owe it to the world to utilize your intellect for the greater good -- be honest in your bias and do your best to filter them.

We won't always agree on everything. Sometimes two+ solutions or explanations exist for a single problem ...or perhaps some issues exceed our personal knowledge & capabilities but we work through as best we can. That's fine. What's not fine is when we lower the bar so far that our opinions are indistinguishable from the confused rantings and inevitable violence of the mentally ill - people we should be rolling our eyes at or calling the authorities. You are better than that and we owe it to each other to be better.

Say no to violence and anti-intellectualism.

Hmmm... This seems like the kind of post that I would be expecting those on the right to shout down - morally superior, with a heavy helping of talking down your nose to your audience, ridiculing anti-intellectualism.

From my observations, anti-intellectualism has been a cry from the left lately to ridicule the ruling right (at least in the states). So who's correct?

I also find it a bit humorous that you are complaining about ZERO corroborating proof in the case of accusations against BK, when the current administration in the US has pretty much identified that they make decisions/comments/accusations regardless of proof or truth. But that's part of the problem. All sides routinely lie, and all sides believe the other sides are lying. Trust and a desire to work together among leaders in the political landscape has been completely obliterated in the US. Hell, Senator Flake even stated "There’s no value to reaching across the aisle. There’s no currency for that anymore. There’s no incentive." That's an objective, and disturbing, truth.

Obviously all these questions/statements are bullshit in the grand scheme, because the entire problem in and of itself is the blind right/left divide. It's the media, politicians, and ruling class that have established that deep rooted divide in the US, and we're seeing evidence of it in Canada now. Combine this massive problem with judging people in the past by today's standards (hello John A. Macdonald, for example) by the morally superior, and we have the circus we see today.

I also find it mind boggling that the US has no rules to ensured bi-partisan support of a Supreme Court nominee in the first place (partially due to removal of filibuster) - again, a symptom of the massive right/left divide. Don't get me wrong, I know WHY the political system wanted it/did it, I'm just a bit horrified it was allowed and not prevented by an over-arching check and balance. The whole concept of 'partisan' judges just seems exceptionally greasy and wrong.

I think I'm most appalled by Mitch McConnell. He, in my mind, is the primary reason that Supreme Court nominations are as partisan as they are today, and will likely continue to be. Not saying they haven't been partisan prior to the Garland nomination (hello Clarence Thomas), but this is just taking it to another level.

And a job interview does not have, nor require, 'due process' - at least not in the context you are referring to. A job interview is about one of the most subjective experiences someone can submit themselves to. The very fact that BK could make the Supreme Court look 'bad' and potentially hurt the 'trust' of impartiality based on comments made, with or without evidence, is still very relevant to the process of choosing someone for this particular job. Problem is, are there truly any qualified candidates, then? Alleged sexual assault is on the worse end of the scale, don't get me wrong, but you could likely dig far enough back into anyone's past and find something that could make them potentially unfit for such a position.

Politics disgust me and, from my perspective, only appear to promote division and tribalism. To me, seems like another World War is the only thing that could truly unify a country as divided as the US again. Maybe that's the true MAGA :p

Hmmm... This seems like the kind of post that I would be expecting those on the right to shout down - morally superior, with a heavy helping of talking down your nose to your audience, ridiculing anti-intellectualism.

Boy oh boy, did you ever miss the point.

From my observations, anti-intellectualism has been a cry from the left lately to ridicule the ruling right (at least in the states). So who's correct?

Citations/examples?

I also find it a bit humorous that you are complaining about ZERO corroborating proof

You went into a whataboutism, but fallacies aside, you never cite any example of the whataboutism….you just allude to it. Not that it matters anyway, the issue was still ZERO corroborating proof for an allegation.

Obviously all these questions/statements are bullshit in the grand scheme, because the entire problem in and of itself is the blind right/left divide. It's the media, politicians, and ruling class that have established that deep rooted divide in the US, and we're seeing evidence of it in Canada now. Combine this massive problem with judging people in the past by today's standards (hello John A. Macdonald, for example) by the morally superior, and we have the circus we see today.

Nothing I disagree with here.

I also find it mind boggling that the US has no rules to ensured bi-partisan support of a Supreme Court nominee in the first place (partially due to removal of filibuster) - again, a symptom of the massive right/left divide. Don't get me wrong, I know WHY the political system wanted it/did it, I'm just a bit horrified it was allowed and not prevented by an over-arching check and balance. The whole concept of 'partisan' judges just seems exceptionally greasy and wrong.

While I see nothing wrong here (improving systems), I also find the problem overblown or misapplied. Judges with values that more closely fall inline with a particular party / ideology really doesn't make a difference when it comes to proper interpretation of the law. Where you get a problem is where Judges are permitted to legislate from the bench, in contrast to the law, due to their ideological bent. That's a different problem. Where you see that, in Canada for example, is when individual judges deliver deferred / reduced sentences for certain crimes, then the AG gets frustrated and the crown stops filing charges for those crimes -- then the cops get frustrated and stop arresting for those crimes (you see this with Street disorder/crime and drugs in Vancouver over the last two decades). Another, related, example is the Gladue Principle.

I think I'm most appalled by Mitch McConnell. He, in my mind, is the primary reason that Supreme Court nominations are as partisan as they are today

Here is where I think you are off base, and allow me to point out why. It was Harry Reid that eliminated the filibuster for confirmations. It was the Dems that tried to appoint Garland during an election year. The blocking of Garland was justified but the Dems only want the rules and traditions to apply to others. McConnell warned Dems that they would regret eliminating the filibuster, sooner rather than later. And so here we are.
Further, lets take a quick look at the history of SCOTUS confirmation votes:

Clinton
RBG 96-3
Breyer 87-9

Bush
Roberts 78-22
Alito 58-42

Obama
Sotomayor 68-31
Kagan 63-37

Trump
Gorsuch 54-45
Kavanaugh 50-48

Dems have been the ones pushing the partisan envelope for SCOTUS for decades now. People forget, but they tried this same shit with Justice Thomas. If you want to be really accurate though, this all really started with Bork.

And a job interview does not have, nor require, 'due process'

Well, then we disagree. How do you imagine a world working, in which any individual has veto power of confirmations by virtue of simply making an allegation? Do you see that working out? Look at colleges -- how many horror stories and even suicides are resulting from abuse of Title IX? Now try saying "oh well, getting an education is privilege and you aren't entitled to due process"....you'd sound like a monster.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/09/uc-d ... ex-hook-up

That's a good read - and you can put as little or as much stock in that as you like. You can find high profile false allegation rape cases over the last few years. Lack of due process is a backwards step and due process should always apply. Period.

Politics disgust me and, from my perspective, only appear to promote division and tribalism. To me, seems like another World War is the only thing that could truly unify a country as divided as the US again. Maybe that's the true MAGA :p

They certainly do. Division isn't anything new, in politics, though the Dems did ramp up the identity politics in around 2006. It had a good decade to ferment; then enter Trump, who dragged the GOP into the mud and punched back. Now you have both parties in the mud. To be honest with you, I think violence will increase as the Dems go further left. I actually expect Dems to underperform in the midterms - and that will drive the fringes nuts.

In Canada, I think Bernier's PP of Canada is an interesting step....perhaps a significant moment, depending on what other party members do and whether he sees populist support.

kali o. wrote:

Hmmm... This seems like the kind of post that I would be expecting those on the right to shout down - morally superior, with a heavy helping of talking down your nose to your audience, ridiculing anti-intellectualism.

Boy oh boy, did you ever miss the point.

From my observations, anti-intellectualism has been a cry from the left lately to ridicule the ruling right (at least in the states). So who's correct?

Citations/examples?

I also find it a bit humorous that you are complaining about ZERO corroborating proof

You went into a whataboutism, but fallacies aside, you never cite any example of the whataboutism….you just allude to it. Not that it matters anyway, the issue was still ZERO corroborating proof for an allegation.

Obviously all these questions/statements are bullshit in the grand scheme, because the entire problem in and of itself is the blind right/left divide. It's the media, politicians, and ruling class that have established that deep rooted divide in the US, and we're seeing evidence of it in Canada now. Combine this massive problem with judging people in the past by today's standards (hello John A. Macdonald, for example) by the morally superior, and we have the circus we see today.

Nothing I disagree with here.

I also find it mind boggling that the US has no rules to ensured bi-partisan support of a Supreme Court nominee in the first place (partially due to removal of filibuster) - again, a symptom of the massive right/left divide. Don't get me wrong, I know WHY the political system wanted it/did it, I'm just a bit horrified it was allowed and not prevented by an over-arching check and balance. The whole concept of 'partisan' judges just seems exceptionally greasy and wrong.

While I see nothing wrong here (improving systems), I also find the problem overblown or misapplied. Judges with values that more closely fall inline with a particular party / ideology really doesn't make a difference when it comes to proper interpretation of the law. Where you get a problem is where Judges are permitted to legislate from the bench, in contrast to the law, due to their ideological bent. That's a different problem. Where you see that, in Canada for example, is when individual judges deliver deferred / reduced sentences for certain crimes, then the AG gets frustrated and the crown stops filing charges for those crimes -- then the cops get frustrated and stop arresting for those crimes (you see this with Street disorder/crime and drugs in Vancouver over the last two decades). Another, related, example is the Gladue Principle.

I think I'm most appalled by Mitch McConnell. He, in my mind, is the primary reason that Supreme Court nominations are as partisan as they are today

Here is where I think you are off base, and allow me to point out why. It was Harry Reid that eliminated the filibuster for confirmations. It was the Dems that tried to appoint Garland during an election year. The blocking of Garland was justified but the Dems only want the rules and traditions to apply to others. McConnell warned Dems that they would regret eliminating the filibuster, sooner rather than later. And so here we are.
Further, lets take a quick look at the history of SCOTUS confirmation votes:

Clinton
RBG 96-3
Breyer 87-9

Bush
Roberts 78-22
Alito 58-42

Obama
Sotomayor 68-31
Kagan 63-37

Trump
Gorsuch 54-45
Kavanaugh 50-48

Dems have been the ones pushing the partisan envelope for SCOTUS for decades now. People forget, but they tried this same shit with Justice Thomas. If you want to be really accurate though, this all really started with Bork.

And a job interview does not have, nor require, 'due process'

Well, then we disagree. How do you imagine a world working, in which any individual has veto power of confirmations by virtue of simply making an allegation? Do you see that working out? Look at colleges -- how many horror stories and even suicides are resulting from abuse of Title IX? Now try saying "oh well, getting an education is privilege and you aren't entitled to due process"....you'd sound like a monster.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/09/uc-d ... ex-hook-up

That's a good read - and you can put as little or as much stock in that as you like. You can find high profile false allegation rape cases over the last few years. Lack of due process is a backwards step and due process should always apply. Period.

Politics disgust me and, from my perspective, only appear to promote division and tribalism. To me, seems like another World War is the only thing that could truly unify a country as divided as the US again. Maybe that's the true MAGA :p

They certainly do. Division isn't anything new, in politics, though the Dems did ramp up the identity politics in around 2006. It had a good decade to ferment; then enter Trump, who dragged the GOP into the mud and punched back. Now you have both parties in the mud. To be honest with you, I think violence will increase as the Dems go further left. I actually expect Dems to underperform in the midterms - and that will drive the fringes nuts.

In Canada, I think Bernier's PP of Canada is an interesting step....perhaps a significant moment, depending on what other party members do and whether he sees populist support.

I'm not going to quote line by line.

I think you understand my position doesn't come from a propensity for violence, metal illness, or inability to reason :p

I'm not going to pour through examples related to 'from my observations' -> I already identified this is a subjective point, to help indicate where some of my opinions may be coming from. I was attempting to frame my perspective to give context to some of the rest of my post.

I didn't cite an example of 'whataboutism' because I wasn't trying to discredit you. I even point out that both sides do what I pointed out ('So who's correct?') - I was making a sarcastic comment, mostly because of how you come off, accentuated by my own biases. But you did disregard my comment about the current administration and politicians on both sides, which was the point I was trying to make - Not to discredit YOU because of the perceived hypocrisy, but pointing out that the current administration, as well as politicians on both sides, haven't exactly held 'proof' and 'truth' in the highest regard when making decisions.

And regarding partisan judges - my essential problem with the concept is, why, now, are people discussing and worried about Roe v. Wade being overturned? Why do some people now think it likely? A decision such as this (or any such decision that is so polarizing in society) shouldn't come into question just because a new Judge with a different slant passed his job interview. It tells me that party/ideology DOES make a difference. (FWIW, before I had a child, I was all about pro-choice. Now with a child, while I generally still fall on the 'woman's right to choose' side of the debate, it is far from a black and white issue for me. I only use this example as it is the one commonly referred to at present).

My comment regarding McConnell would be completely off base, if he hadn't recently refused to rule out appointing a Supreme Court Judge if a vacancy becomes available in 2020 (election year).

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... es-vpx.cnn

CNN hyperbole notwithstanding - McConnell is a sleazy hypocrite who I see as existing almost solely to poke the other side of the aisle in the eye. I have no love for Lindsay Graham (dude makes me laugh though, in a good way - sure is passionate), but at least he said he would likely defer such a decision until after the election.

And I'm aware of the where the filibuster removal came from. Reid started it for most presidential nominations, not including the Supreme Court nominations

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 427dc8b43c

McConnell extended it specifically for Supreme Court nominations

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... d75d7f080b

Looking at the votes in context of only Supreme Court nominations indicates Democrats have been on the wrong side of history (I even pointed out Thomas in my post, which you re-iterated). Expanding that context to all Presidential nominations, however, and both sides have had their hands in it, resulting in where we are at today.

My statement about job interviews would have been better put as "a job interview may have due process, but doesn't have to". All I'm pointing out is the subjective opinions of those doing the interviewing can, more likely than not, be enough to deny someone a job (unless the opinion is based on someone's race, religion, sex, gender, etc.). Being accused of sexually assaulting someone would be enough justification for a potential employer to distance themselves from a candidate in many cases, not least of which being for a seat as a Justice on Supreme Court of the USA.

I'm not going to address Title IX, because it's not a job interview, but an example of where due process is needed (I agree). I never made the statement that 'due process isn't required anywhere' - I don't see this as a valid equivalency.

You may believe due process should apply everywhere, and I generally agree (I don't think any of my comments have advocated for a lack of due process). I'm simply making my statements regarding job interviews, in general, based on current reality.

And regarding violence - is this my opportunity to say 'blame on both sides' ? The extreme left is getting more aggressive with the increased political polarization, and being under the rule of the right. I'm curious to see, if the left finds and elects their own Trump, if the extreme right would respond similarly.

Fuck I can't write more about this. I honestly don't think we're far off from one another, in the grand scheme: facts based decision making = good. Unconditionally believing political and media circus = at your own risk, think before believing. Both sides are generally shitty, and will stoop to ever lower lows to fuck the other side.

I'm not going to quote line by line.

It's handy for focusing the conversation -- and cuts down on the quote spam.

I didn't cite an example of 'whataboutism' because I wasn't trying to discredit you. I even point out that both sides do what I pointed out ('So who's correct?'

I understand what you were doing. The whataboutism was a distraction, intentional or not, to the actual point (that it was funny I was outraged at ZERO proof). If you want to discuss the Kavanaugh accusation specifically, we can. The whataboutism leads to a different topic -- the partisanship you claim that exists on both sides. I didn't even mind the fallacy, but if you are not providing specifics and examples -- where precisely do you want this prong of the discussion to go?

And regarding partisan judges - my essential problem with the concept is, why, now, are people discussing and worried about Roe v. Wade being overturned?

Well, two reasons. First, it riles up the base, so it's the Dem go to whenever a republican gets a SCOTUS pick. Second, it probably is a good chance that Roe vs Wade will be overturned at some point. It's actually partisan activists judges that keep it in the realm of a sacred cow (to see this, look at the last time they tackled the Partial Birth Abortion issue and read the utter idiocy from both sides not at all related to actual law).

Have you ever read Roe vs Wade? If not, I really suggest you do. Essentially, it uses the right to privacy to preclude using a constitutional argument to protect an unborn baby (personhood and inalienable rights). And within the nuances of that argument, the technological advance from 1973 to now would render most of the justification moot.

The really interesting thing is even if Roe vs Wade were overturned (and it will be, one day), it's not like abortions would become illegal. The power would go back to the states, where it belongs. Abortions were legal before Roe vs Wade and they will be legal after.

Note: Personally, I don't see the abortion debate as very complicated. These are lives that are being ended. With few exceptions (under the age of majority, rape, medically justified), if a potential pregnancy isn't ended within a reasonable period (TBD, ~6 weeks, less as technology advances and allows), it shouldn't be legal.

My comment regarding McConnell would be completely off base

No, you said McConnel was responsible for how partisan the SCOTUS nomination process was now -- I just pointed out you can't fairly blame him for that. Now you are saying he is hypocrite. Which is fine, but a different point. I think what you might be trying to say is McConnell is completely ok being a dirty fighter in the senate. Yes, that is his reputation and he will punch back viciously. But lets be fair -- the old guard like McConnell will only break tradition if the other side does it first -- all he is doing is not giving the ground by discounting the option -- he wouldn't do it first and he wouldn't get support if he did (or again, unless the Dems did it first).

My statement about job interviews would have been better put as "a job interview may have due process, but doesn't have to".

It does, and I guess we won't agree (which is strange, because everything else you write indicates you probably should agree). Maybe your "doesn't have to" is intended to mean you are acknowledging it is not **legally** required. Ok, I understand that. My point is to any reasonable observer, it **should** apply.

That this is an interview for such a high position, should, if anything, only increase the need for due process and fairness - in order to screen out the partisanship you seem to despise. The Title IX stuff was just to highlight the illogic of claiming that the allegation was not a criminal matter (yet) and therefore due process doesn't apply. Perhaps you don't share that view, but it has been parroted by the Left a lot these last few weeks, and that's why I brought up Title IX.

if the left finds and elects their own Trump, if the extreme right would respond similarly

They did. Obama. It drove the right nuts. Not violent, but nuts enough to elect Trump.

I'd love to discuss what Trump is doing that is so maddening to Leftists - because it all looks pretty good so far to me. But that seems like a deep subject that will derail this already derailed thread We have that other Trump thread if you wanna educate me there instead.

So... when do you think you guys will be done writing this book?

Over the years I have advocated that everyone just save time and agree with me; as I am always proven correct eventually. But the Shrine stubbornly refuses and we must go through this verbose charade.

PS - https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/membership

Julius Seeker wrote:So... when do you think you guys will be done writing this book?

You prefer 2-3 weeks between posts in daily stuph?

Susan Collins just got a six-figure payout from Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative thinktank dedicated to electing conservative judges, right after the Kavanaugh confirmation vote - so no, I'm not walking back anything I said about the possibility of bribery. Not even a little bit.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1 ... h-Yes-Vote

kali o. wrote:Over the years I have advocated that everyone just save time and agree with me; as I am always proven correct eventually. But the Shrine stubbornly refuses and we must go through this verbose charade.

Wikipedia has a great article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, if anyone is interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissis ... y_disorder

Oh, and as for why it all matters:

The new Court's first decision was to uphold a voter ID law in North Dakota that requires a residential, physical physical address there in order to be eligible to vote.

The law disenfranchises an utter majority of Native Americans in the state, whose reservation addresses do not qualify under the law and who cannot use P.O. Boxes anymore to qualify either.

This isn't by accident. This is part and parcel of what gerrymandering looks like in the United States these days.