Supreme Court of the United States

[Sour Masher]

can you imagine President Hillary in a spot where one of HER SCOTUS choices faced such allegations? (and let's face it, they're going to come regardless in the future. the line has been drawn).

It would have been awkward, leaving her on shaky ground to say anything on the subject, much like it has been for Trump. I don't see how it would have been any worse for her than Trump though.

And yes, many, like baldgriff and the departed GitH have taken the stance that, we should not have voted for HRC as a lesser of evils, but their opinion of her evilness was for different reasons than this one we are discussing. Most folks who take that stance around here are either socialists or libertarians, it seems, interestingly enough. I am neither, so my options were limited. Did not think Johnson or Stein were viable or desirable third party candidates. Both were about as bad a representation f their parties as the main two were for theirs, and neither was at all electable, for good reasons beyond the stranglehold the two main parties have on American politics. I thought and still think that of the four people on the ballot HRC was the most qualified and capable candidate, worts and all.

[Judge Jude]

well, I guess the key question is if, given the extensive and detailed nature of her allegations, you believe Bill Clinton is a rapist?

if yes, does Hillary get a pass because ok, her husband is a rapist and has committed many other awful transgressions, but not her? is this where we're going?

if not, how are you going to believe Kavanaugh's accuser with massively less evidence?

this is a watershed moment. please consider what standard you need re Kavanaugh vs Bill.

also, would you be ok with Bill getting another keynote, prime time speech time at the 2020 Dem Convention? It's less than 2 years away. if yes, how do you thread that needle? Bill wasn't a teenager, among other differences.

[Sour Masher]

well, I guess the key question is if, given the extensive and detailed nature of her allegations, you believe Bill Clinton is a rapist?

if yes, does Hillary get a pass because ok, her husband is a rapist and has committed many other awful transgressions, but not her? is this where we're going?

if not, how are you going to believe Kavanaugh's accuser with massively less evidence?

this is a watershed moment. please consider what standard you need re Kavanaugh vs Bill.

also, would you be ok with Bill getting another keynote, prime time speech time at the 2020 Dem Convention? It's less than 2 years away. if yes, how do you thread that needle? Bill wasn't a teenager, among other differences.

Yes, I think it is likely Clinton committed assaults against women. I would not convict him in a court based on the circumstantial evidence, but I certainly would not vote for him now for any political office, and certainly not for a lifetime appointment when even more damning evidence could come out later and we could do nothing to remove him. And as I've said before, I think both Clintons, and most especially Bill, should be pushed away from the democratic party. If I were in charge, he would not be at the 2020 convention, or any other convention.

As far as my standard for evidence against a SC nominee, as I try to make clear in the above paragraph, it is far less than it would be if I were a juror. Our system gives lifetime appointments. As long as that is the case, and we are stuck with these judges for life, any credible accusations of such heinous behavior is enough for me to say, move on to the next person on the list. In fact, I'm more cautious with SC nominees than elected officials that can be removed much more easily.

Finally, I think I've already addressed my thoughts on "giving HRC a pass." I still think you are conflating her actions with her husbands. I don't give her a pass on her actions. They need to be considered for sure, and criticism of her is fair, including how she has responded to her husband's accusers. But she doesn't need a "pass" for her husband's actions. They weren't her actions. She didn't do those things. Even if he is a rapist, that doesn't make her one. So if you are willing to be specific about what pass you are talking about, and you are willing to be very clear on how her staying with Bill Clinton is very different from her doing what Bill Clinton may have done, maybe we can come to an understanding of our relative positions.

The idea that you seem incredulous at the notion that anyone would dare draw a clear distinction between a rapist and someone who is not a rapist (no one to my knowledge has ever accused HRC of that) is highly perplexing to me. She chose to believe her husband over his accusers. Given the evidence, her doing that may be rightly criticized, but it is an entirely different thing to believe a loved one, perhaps even blindly and stupidly and wrongly, than it is to actually do the things he us accused of, or Kavanaugh is a accused of, or Trump. It is weird that a woman standing by an abuser seems to get more flack than any if the abusers. The idea that not treating her like we would her husband is some sort of hypocritical slight of hand, just because of the tiny technicality that she is, in fact, not him, and did not do what he has done, just blows my mind.

It is fair to say many give HRC a pass for how she responded to allegations against her husband, and it is fair to say people should not give her that pass, but any such pass is a completely different pass for totally different things than a pass given to Bill Clinton or Trump or Cavanaugh. That distinction must be made.

[Judge Jude]

good post.

do you believe Broaddrick's claim that Hillary intimidated her at an event a month after the alleged incident - and if so, is that relevant?

and if Hillary doesn't believe any of the claims against her husband, she's even dumber than Melania - and I wouldn't vote for either one of them.

I'll go on record as saying that if I believe anyone's spouse is a rapist, and they stay with them anyway, I won't vote for them.

maybe that's easier because I'm a lifelong independent, but I don't think it should be. I need more than "it wasn't me, that was the husband I still stand by in spite of a massive mountain of evidence against him. Female accusers should be believed, except for the countless ones who accused my husband."

[Sour Masher]

I think HRC knows her husband is a philanderer of the highest order. I believe she may have stayed with him despite that fact for a combination of true affection and political ambition. I do not believe HRC believes her husband is a rapist. Her confrontation with Broadrick, to me, supports that theory. She was angry at the accuser, because she thought she was lying. I think that believing HRC is so cold and calculated and viscous as to attack who she believes is a rape victim requires one to have a very low predisposed opinion of her that I do not have. I do think her response to Bill's accusers is a mark against her, but not a fatal one given her opponents in 2016. However, if I believed as you seem to that she knew/believed her husband was not just a philanderer, but a rapist, and responded as she has, I'd also share your opinion that would be bad enough to not vote for her.

As it is, the pass I think I'm giving to her is that she is a woman who is okay with her husband being a horn dog that sleeps with other woman, which is none of my business, and the other more debatable pass I'm giving her is she believes him over the woman who says he forced himself on her. I think to an objective outsider, it may be hard to accept that a smart woman would believe her husband in that case while knowing he lied about all the affairs, but I think her image of her husband is of a cheater not a rapist, and that is why she stayed with and supported him. In her mind, she probably is basing that belief on the fact that he has a long history of consenual affairs, and she has never experienced violence with him, and most men who do assault and rape do it habitually, so she thinks many more of Bill's other women would have accused him of this if he were capable of it.

[chancellor]

BTW, lifetime appointments for the SC is super dumb. Aren't we the only country that does that?

Funny, liberals are only complaining about this now that the court appears to be tilting conservative for a long time....this seems to be the same whining conservatives made when Roe v Wade, in particular, came out.

I think it's brilliant, and have done so even when the court tilted liberal. I feel it's an important check to have non-elected individuals against the elected branches, with those not having to worry about an election, or a retirement legacy.

[nots]

and most men who do assault and rape do it habitually.

Exactly, which is why I don’t think Kavanaugh’s nomination should be held up, especially when considered in conjunction with the accuser’s vague details regarding the events of the night in question. As JJ alluded to earlier, I do think this kind of unsubstantiated allegation is going to be par for the course going forward for both teams and it puts us on a very slippery slope.

[B-Fly]

Funny, liberals are only complaining about this now that the court appears to be tilting conservative for a long time....this seems to be the same whining conservatives made when Roe v Wade, in particular, came out.

I think it's brilliant, and have done so even when the court tilted liberal. I feel it's an important check to have non-elected individuals against the elected branches, with those not having to worry about an election, or a retirement legacy.

Agreed. Lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court are a great check against far more dramatic politicization of the Court than we've historically seen. They can be impeached if they engage in extreme misconduct.

[Sour Masher]

Exactly, which is why I don’t think Kavanaugh’s nomination should be held up, especially when considered in conjunction with the accuser’s vague details regarding the events of the night in question. As JJ alluded to earlier, I do think this kind of unsubstantiated allegation is going to be par for the course going forward for both teams and it puts us on a very slippery slope.

Do you think she is a paid operative lying to sabotage his appointment? If so, and that is going to be par for the course, I'd agree, we need to overlook such accusations. I don't believe that to be the cases based on the facts as I know them so far. If she is lying because of politics, she deserves to be imprisoned. I think we need tougher penalties for false accusations, but that is tough since such measures are likely to silence victims.

Kavanaugh doesn't seem to be a singular talent, so if we have reasonable doubts about his character, why not just move on to the next candidate, who I'm sure will be equally conservative and ideologically driven as Kavanaugh, thus appeasing Republicans? It may be hard to find another guy who is as deferential to the powers of the executive branch, but on all other issues, there are dozens of Republican approved alternatives to Kavanaugh, I'm sure.

[Sour Masher]

Funny, liberals are only complaining about this now that the court appears to be tilting conservative for a long time....this seems to be the same whining conservatives made when Roe v Wade, in particular, came out.

I think it's brilliant, and have done so even when the court tilted liberal. I feel it's an important check to have non-elected individuals against the elected branches, with those not having to worry about an election, or a retirement legacy.

I've always thought it was weird, and especially now with liberal judges hanging on to the position well past appropriate retirement age so as to not lose the seat to a conservative. Hearing accounts by former underlimgs of how diminished some of these over 80 judges are strengthens my opinion. Underlings are basically running the show and guessing on what to decide based on past decision s made when the appointed justices were sharper and more with it. That is scary. At the very least we should test their capacities like we do elderly drivers to ensure they are still capable of performing their jobs at a high level.

[B-Fly]

Was this identified or missed in the Trump team's vetting of Kavanaugh?

[gcstomp]

The makeup, the political leaning of the SC does not reflect the country. Past 26 years in presidential elections, more people voted for the D nominee than the R in all but 1 race. The SC should reflect the populations wishes, but instead we have if fortune falls just so you have openings at fortuitous times to fill. As far as Kavanaugh, I think they had to have hearings. The accuser is credible, with complaints to therapist and associates from years ago regarding this event. Also, a polygraph administered by an experienced former FBI agent is not at all tea leaf reading. We can argue about accuracy of polygraph, it is something over 90% when regarding 1 event and administered by an expert but whatever... in 26 states polygraph readings are admissible in court if both parties agree. I am guess Kavanauh wont volunteer for one, we hold the 2 positions to be same weight, 1 person having one done, and the other refusing?

Al Franken was disappeared from politics over a lesser accusation, from an accuser who actually had a demonstratable opposition political public speaking bent. This whole thing is sloppy, and does not inspire confidence in the system.

[nots]

Do you think she is a paid operative lying to sabotage his appointment? If so, and that is going to be par for the course, I'd agree, we need to overlook such accusations. I don't believe that to be the cases based on the facts as I know them so far. If she is lying because of politics, she deserves to be imprisoned. I think we need tougher penalties for false accusations, but that is tough since such measures are likely to silence victims.

Kavanaugh doesn't seem to be a singular talent, so if we have reasonable doubts about his character, why not just move on to the next candidate, who I'm sure will be equally conservative and ideologically driven as Kavanaugh, thus appeasing Republicans? It may be hard to find another guy who is as deferential to the powers of the executive branch, but on all other issues, there are dozens of Republican approved alternatives to Kavanaugh, I'm sure.

No, I don’t think she is a paid operative but that doesn’t mean I am willing to accept her story without skepticism. She is very foggy on many of the details, her therapists notes contradict the number of people there ( is it common for therapists to misrecord notes from a session? I think it’s pretty unlikely), Kavanaugh issued a strong denial (not a Roy Moore type denial), the other person there backed Kavanaughs version of the events, she has a very strong anti-Trump social media history and she waited until 4 days before the vote to step out from anonymity. If someone else steps forward with a claim about Kavanaugh, he should be voted down. But an unverified story (with no way whatsoever to verify it) makes me suspicious.
As to your second paragraph—cmon, you know exactly why the Republicans don’t want to go the next guy in the lineup. As soon as they do, the Democrats will complain there isn’t enough to time to get him/her before the election, hoping they take control of the Senate and are able to vote down the rest of Trump’s nominees until 2020.
PS—why do you think Diane Feinstein, who had this bombshell of a letter since July, decided not to ask Kavanaugh about the incident in their private meeting(s)?

[Judge Jude]

"Al Franken was disappeared from politics over a lesser accusation"

that entire saga was ridiculous. Franken made a visual prank worthy of a high school sophomore, and had other immature incidents. but he should not have been forced to resign. that was an emotional Democratic party virtue-signaling frenzy -as I think they now realize.

[nots]

"Al Franken was disappeared from politics over a lesser accusation"

that entire saga was ridiculous. Franken made a visual prank worthy of a high school sophomore, and had other immature incidents. but he should not have been forced to resign. that was an emotional Democratic party virtue-signaling frenzy -as I think they now realize.

I agree. He basically was sacrificed at the altar of Kristen Gillibrand’s Presidential aspirations.
Now Keith Ellison on the other hand.......