Machiavellian said: Snoopy said: The way American politics is heading, we will only get corrupt people running for office. Who in their right mind would want to be a politician with all this mud slinging and people getting their lives ruined on baseless accusations? Lol, did you just wake up today and notice how politics work.  This is pretty much normal and has been for decades.  If anything if you have a checkered past you best think twice before running for any office because people will spend a lot of time digging that stuff up.

Yes, but it has never been this bad in my experience. Usually, when a politician gets into trouble there is some kind of evidence.  Now you don't even need evidence. As long as you go for the "muh feelings" you can hurt anyone.

Machiavellian said: thismeintiel said: To the Dems, there won't be a judge that is clean enough. Or shows the right demeanor. They let Gorsuch slide because he was a Conservative judge replacing another Conservative judge. Kennedy's replacement tips the scale in the Reps favor, at least in their mind, even though he is more moderate. If they actually lose the mid-terms, and RBG steps down, or (God forbid) has health issues, her replacement will face even more garbage, no matter how squeaky clean they actually are. It'll make this circus look like a walk in the park. And you are right. This may cost them the mid-terms. It's energized the base and frightened some moderates with the "guilty until proven innocent" stance the Dems are taking. Polls are slowly sliding towards the Reps.  Wasn't Garland clean enough.  Even the GOP thought he was a good justice but they wanted to pick their own and wanted nothing from Obama.  I notice how people only see political maneuvers from the party they do not support.  As to energizing the base, I kind of lol at that.  If they were not energized already, I wonder why this would make a difference.  The most vocal isn't always the majority.  At the end of the day, people who vote are going to vote and people who do not probably will not.  I highly doubt this will spur any people who do not vote compared to people that do not.  It will still go along partisan lines as always.

exactly, irrefutable fact. it just shows that the repubs are pro party, and not country.

DrDoomz said: deskpro2k3 said: It does address what you said. You want someone clean? Then let the FBI investigate the claims to see if they're fabricated lies or not. Nothing is stopping them from invenstigating once he’s confirmed. If he IS guilty of sexual harassment, then he could just be prosecuted once he’s in office. Til then, we assume he is innocent until proof comes out that he’s not. Anything else would just be a stalling tactic. Edit. Also, it doesn’t address what I said because what I said is that the democrats could just as easily try and sully any judge’s reputation if the precedence of accusation = guilt is followed (w/c is what the democrats are trying to pull) and the fact that the democrat politicians have IMO shown to everyone that they are willing to do anything and everything to prevent Trump’s nominee from being in the SC.

True, a judge can be impeached.

I see now, you see it as a sham. Assuming that is what the democrats agenda is, to "sully someone's reputation.." The FBI can still just do their job without limitation and find absolutely nothing. no harm done, reputation intact = you get the job. However I don't think the democrats are saying he is guilty, they're saying they want everyone to be heard and interviewed. Ex. like his classmates, college roommates, etc.

Collins and Manchin will vote yes. Guessing Flake will too. Pretty much confirmed, now.

deskpro2k3 said: True, a judge can be impeached. I see now, you see it as a sham. Assuming that is what the democrats agenda is, to "sully someone's reputation.." The FBI can still just do their job without limitation and find absolutely nothing. no harm done, reputation intact = you get the job. However I don't think the democrats are saying he is guilty, they're saying they want everyone to be heard and interviewed. Ex. like his classmates, college roommates, etc.

 

You can't remove a judge from the Supreme Court - there is no process for it. To have a process would require a constitutional amendment. Once confirmed - he could be arrested (nothing protects those Judges) and convicted - and still serve - I'm unsure about the laws but a congressperson that is in prison must be released any time congress is in session to vote (that's the law) unless they are removed from office. I would guess for a SC judge it'd be the same thing. That's why having a rational, and thorough process to vet appointees is so important.

Ckorik said: You can't remove a judge from the Supreme Court *snips* deskpro2k3 said:   True, a judge can be impeached. *snips*

 

Samuel Chase impeached (1805): https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Tries_Justice.htm

Abe Fortas (May 15, 1969)

became the first Supreme Court justice to resign under the threat of impeachment.

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 05 October 2018

thismeintiel said: Collins and Manchin will vote yes. Guessing Flake will too. Pretty much confirmed, now.

I wouldnt count Flake as a confirmed yes just yet. Dude flip flops more than my shoes. Even without him though, at this time, they still have the votes.

A question-dodging, irascible, mendacious, alleged sexual assaulter is going to be the next supreme court justice. With Donald in the White House I should not be surprised at the level of incompetence in Washington these days.

Time to get a beer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUmQC5FxDkk&t=143s

deskpro2k3 said: DrDoomz said: Nothing is stopping them from invenstigating once he’s confirmed. If he IS guilty of sexual harassment, then he could just be prosecuted once he’s in office. Til then, we assume he is innocent until proof comes out that he’s not. Anything else would just be a stalling tactic. Edit. Also, it doesn’t address what I said because what I said is that the democrats could just as easily try and sully any judge’s reputation if the precedence of accusation = guilt is followed (w/c is what the democrats are trying to pull) and the fact that the democrat politicians have IMO shown to everyone that they are willing to do anything and everything to prevent Trump’s nominee from being in the SC. True, a judge can be impeached. I see now, you see it as a sham. Assuming that is what the democrats agenda is, to "sully someone's reputation.." The FBI can still just do their job without limitation and find absolutely nothing. no harm done, reputation intact = you get the job. However I don't think the democrats are saying he is guilty, they're saying they want everyone to be heard and interviewed. Ex. like his classmates, college roommates, etc.

I don’t see it as a sham per se. I just see the possibility of a sham to be just as likely as Ford being truthful and one needs to address both possibilities as probable and to approach things neutrally assuming either scenario could happen. Essentially, I condemn Trump for making fun of a potential victim but I also I condemn far more the celebs that are practically revelling at his humiliation when knowing his guilt is yet unproven and also condemn the politicians that have either attempted to destroy a man’s life/career/reputation/family or (at best) tried to weaponize a victim against her wishes and undermined an entire movement (#metoo) for the sake of political expediency.

I don’t think the goal was to sully someone’s reputation per se. Just to prevent him getting into the SC at all costs.

It’s hard to trust the intentions of the democrats if you view them from the light of “prevent Kav from getting into the SC at all costs” as a possibile scenario. Because it is just as easy for them to ask for another requirement once one requirement is met by simply creating doubt via arbitrary reasons, and thorough investigations are notorious for creating more “doubt” if you spin the findinds enough (“It says here that one of his ex gfs claimed that he grabbed her arm once in a fight when they were teens, let’s now investigate potential abuse vs women! For the womenz!”). You and I both know that the dems are clearly determined enough to keep this “process” going well after the midterms (w/c is what it boils down to).