Y2HH

I think adding a 10 year term limit is all you’d need in this case, with that limit imposed you wouldn’t really need more justices, as they’d be replaced constantly anyway.

I’m not a fan of the president picking them or the lifetime appointments, either.

Well, we both agree that conversation would be worth having. Here is the thing, right now we have a tit for tat system. One party does X when in power, and when it happens their side is okay with it, but when the other party gains power and does the same thing, or escalates what was started, it’s suddenly no longer okay. Also, I’m not so optimistic some of these justices are gonna live another 40 years. I’m also not fond of a political Supreme Court on either side. I think it should all be people with proven non-partisan records.

At least we have some common ground here.

And if that was the case I’m just guessing you wouldn’t be b****ing about the terrible system. And I’d likely be right.

Yea, and let’s “pack the court” because we don’t like the “illegal” tactics the right takes! I just laugh at the willful ignorance here. It’s largely why I disappeared from here for so long. Anyone that can’t see the flaws in suggesting something stupid, (yes, stupid), like “packing the court”, are the same exact people that were okay with the dems getting rid of the 60 vote majority to appoint, until it started backfiring ... like now.

I’m pretty sure he said the opposite, that it WAS settled law. Someone in the know should verify one way or another or we may as well delete this thread. Edit: seems that in an old email he didn’t think it was, but has recently said it was. Not sure I’m very worried about it, seems like people are just looking for things to worry about. But I suppose we shall see, since I think he’s getting confirmed at this point.

This thread is suddenly jumping the partisan shark. Not that it didn’t from the get go. No longer worth discussing.

Okay, I hope nothing goes bad here one way or another -- slight disclosure -- I live around the corner from Van Dyke (no, I've never met him, and no, I don't know him) -- and our kids attend the same school.

This verdict has me so nervous. 😬😬

While I understand this is a rather serious topic, I found this too funny not to post: https://twitter.com/heyitschili/status/1045718359713681408

Ah okay, good to know. Didn’t know that.

It would be very easy to say it's equally telling that her odd demands to testify under oath means she doesn't actually want to testify under oath. A few points on the matter, as I understand it, she doesn't want the accused to be in the same room as her? As uncomfortable as that may be -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- but doesn't he have the constitutional right to face his accuser in such a setting? On top of that, she also wants the defense to testify first? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm almost positive that's not how it works. This is growing more bizarre by the minute and it's getting easier and easier to believe the democrats are simply wielding Ford as a political weapon at this point. I'm sticking with what I said in the other thread -- Democrats (and those that consider themselves democrats) want her to be right, so they can get rid of Kavanaugh, and Republicans (and those that consider themselves republicans) want him to be right, so they can get him on the SC ... and neither actually seem to want to know the truth, unless that truth happens to side with them. I wish there was a simple way to prove this one way or another so we can just move on from what's becoming a circus that's upending peoples lives. (I wouldn't mind @illinilaw08 chiming in here, because I'm sure he can set the record straight on anything I'm not understanding in regards to the law here.)

Fair. It started with Feinstein, but she was not the end all of the issue. And the people threatinging her are pieces of garbage, and there is no defense for them or anyone that does things like this.

Wouldn't be opposed to this. I'm not a very big fan of our process of appointing SCJ's or the circus of a confirmation process. Now shimmy yer ass outta my thread, Parkman! lol

Won't disagree with you there. I can say without exception, regardless of how drunk I may have been and the poor decisions I've made, I've never done that.

I try to be as honest about my political leanings as I can be, even when people don't really care for it. A lot of what is posted here, people need to keep in mind, is just snippets of thoughts. Things are so easily lost in translation on the Internet. I could easily write a hundred pages on my original post to elaborate and discuss, but that wasn't really the point.

Yeah, that's incredibly terrible of people -- actually, the word I want to use is shitty, so I'll use it. It's shitty. And i feel the same way about the people telling Kavanaugh's wife she deserves to be raped for marrying a rapist, and other vile things such as that. I mean, what the fuck is that?! Where is the decency? Ford, nor Kavanaugh's wife deserve to be treated like this, and anyone doing it is truly a terrible person. On the bright side for Ford, at least when all is said and done she'll be receiving million dollar book deals and doing the talk show circuit and being famous for a while. Also, just because I feel it needs to be said -- what's happening to Ford is Feinstein's fault, and all out of politics. I'll break this down quite litearlly to, "Oh well, fuck Ford and what she has to deal with so long as this derails Kavanaugh." That's what they said, and that's what they did. The woman literally told them all, "keep this anonymous, I do NOT want to come forward", and was eventually forced to do so because of politics. Such a wonderful lot of people we have running this place. It's all so very ugly.

Sorry, off topic but I was actually dreading making a return to the Buster, but I'm glad I did. It's nice to have an actual conversation with you guys again. Even if you can't see how right I am and how wrong you are.

I'm simply thinking if they haven't uncovered such things to this point, the FBI isn't going to suddenly wise up and find something after the other 50 background checks they've done on him over the years. This is going to take others coming forward right now. If they have a story to tell, NOW is the time. And if that's the case, fine...he's unfit to serve. But if that doesn't happen, I can't take that stance based on one woman's unprovable claim. I just can't. And we both know what's really going on at this point -- this is an obvious delay attempt to get to the midterms where the democrats can possibly take over the houses and turn Trump into a lame duck and leave the court at 8 until the next election where hopefully a democrat wins (and I honestly cannot see how they can fuck this one up). That much is pretty obvious to me. This is becoming an annoying tit-for-tat dogfight in our government. I'm also not a fan of lifetime terms for the supreme court.

I'll agree with most of this. One thing I'll kind of step out of bounds on is where you say it shows horrendous lack of judgement and character. Of course it does. I did some hard partying in my youth -- in a very similar "party culture" and we all had a horrendous lack of judgement at the time, I'm quite sure. The girls that showed up with us also displayed a lot of those same traits -- again, at the time -- which is why we were all there in the first place. None of us are those people anymore. It was part of growing up and learning. Now, I'd love to say with certainty I was never sexually aggressive to the extent of this story -- but I'm sure it's very possible I'm someone's "me too", depending on their recollection of things. I mean, I'd sincerely hope not, but it's damn possible.

And I'm saying I don't like that. I think if it can't be proven, or other instances such as this one can't be found in his life (which would be enough IMO to corroborate this claim), that it's just not enough for me to disqualify him. Look, like I said, this is clearly a partisan issue. Odds are quite high if you lean left, you don't want him on the court, and if you lean right, you do. And based on that political position, you'll agree with Ford's account, or his.

I know what you are. And come on, with Sandusky we had living witnesses, testimony, etc. With this case we have one person saying he did, and two saying he didn't, with no video, no other witnesses, etc. I just don't see how this can be proven unless the only witness in the room flips. If that happens, hell with it, fine ... he's guilty. I'd be FINE with that. What I'm not fine with is "okay, he may have done it, let's fuck him for life just in case". Again, I just feel it's a terrible way to do things. I'm not even saying I'm right -- I'm simply giving my opinion.

Well, I agree every effort should be made, but I don't really agree with "if there is a likelihood this occurred" he's unfit. Why? Because of course there is a likelihood it occurred. Almost any claim a person makes (such as this one) there is a likelihood it occurred. But there is also a likelihood it didn't, and therefore it shouldn't be held against him unless it can actually be proven. Can't we just make these claims about any appointee from now until the sun burns out? "Yeah uhh, 47 years ago she/he did X to me, I have no witnesses, and I'm pretty believable, so you should just trust me." I just don't like the precedent that sets, and that's not saying I even like Kavanaugh.

No, it's really not how they work in hindsight. You're talking about something that happened 35 years ago, with no other witnesses present. Yes, they can take statements from the three -- and that's all they can take. You can't take statements from "people she may have told", that's called hearsay. And one of the people she told already repeated incorrect claims -- therapist wrote an incorrect number of people at the party -- and that's why such claims aren't "evidence".