Well, this politcal cartoon sure is spot on.

[LSSBB]

Man you people whine. If you don't want to participate, don't. No one is forcing you to read the threads.

Excuse me? Where did I say I don't want to participate?

 

[applecorped]

no.
The goal of getting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is to reverse Women's rights, as many Republicans have stated in one form or another. And they are using a fake-legal process (like using Mitchell) to ram a candidate through without allowing for the constitutional right of the Senators to vet him.

Republicans are abusing their majority to politicize the Supreme Court.
No wonder Lady Justice doesn't want to play along.

The proboscis enlarges

 

[Cabbage]

Ford's the one who tried to ruin someone's career with anonymous and unsupported accusations. Ford's the one trying to use the FBI as her personal therapy pet.

I'm genuinely curious if you're even aware of the obvious bias in your statement or if you are such a partisan hack you're even blind to that.

Of course, I've noticed you don't like answering my questions. Curious.

 

[Ziggurat]

First of all, "recent" was in reference to the ABA statements FROM A FEW DAYS AGO. Second, yeah 2006 is still rather recent.

This one?
https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...r-calling-for-fbi-investigation-of-kavanaugh/
Small problem: the statement wasn't from the ABA as an institution, it was a personal letter from the president, Robert Carlson. But the president of the ABA isn't the one who is supposed to evaluate judicial nominees. The Standing Committee on the Judiciary is. They're the ones who come up with the formal ABA ratings for judicial nominees. And they were not informed of his letter, nor was their input or feedback requested for it.
https://twitter.com/senjudiciary/status/1045791085598068737/

 

[Steve]

Oh, still dishonest I see.

Republican. It's mandatory.

 

[theprestige]

no.

Yes.

The goal of getting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is to reverse Women's rights, as many Republicans have stated in one form or another. And they are using a fake-legal process (like using Mitchell) to ram a candidate through without allowing for the constitutional right of the Senators to vet him.

Republicans are abusing their majority to politicize the Supreme Court.
No wonder Lady Justice doesn't want to play along.

That's as may be, and certainly debatable.

But Ford's own actions are themselves a clear suppression of justice. Don't try to pretend they're not.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, here's some further investigative results, since everyone seems so keen on that. Remember what supposedly prompted Ford to seek marriage counseling in the first place back in 2012? She wanted a second front door to her house so she wouldn't feel claustrophobic, because of the trauma of Kavanaugh's assault, and her husband didn't understand why she needed it.

Well, turns out that's basically bull ****. The building permit for the second exterior door, along with an additional room that door was connected to, was issued four years earlier, in 2008, and work was completed in 2010. And it wasn't added to relieve her claustrophobia. Both the room and the door were added so that they could rent out a room to Sylvia Adkins Randall, a marriage therapist (not theirs) who sold them the house to begin with but wanted to rent out a room to continue practicing her business from that address. It has subsequently been rented out to students as a residence.
https://www.realclearinvestigations...uments_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html

 

[theprestige]

I'm genuinely curious if you're even aware of the obvious bias in your statement or if you are such a partisan hack you're even blind to that.

Of course, I've noticed you don't like answering my questions. Curious.

I'm not seeing a question here.

 

[Belz...]

Small problem: the statement wasn't from the ABA as an institution, it was a personal letter from the president, Robert Carlson.

Yeah and who ever said that presidents represent their organisations? What a silly notion!

 

[Belz...]

But Ford's own actions are themselves a clear suppression of justice. Don't try to pretend they're not.

How the hell do you figure that? Are accusations somehow not supposed to be made? Perhaps she should wait until he's retired?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah and who ever said that presidents represent their organisations? What a silly notion!

Does Trump represent you? Do his opinions indicate anything about your opinions? He is your president, after all.

You can't actually be so dumb as to not understand the difference and why it matters.

 

[Belz...]

Well, turns out that's basically bull ****. The building permit for the second exterior door, along with an additional room that door was connected to, was issued four years earlier, in 2008, and work was completed in 2010. And it wasn't added to relieve her claustrophobia. Both the room and the door were added so that they could rent out a room to Sylvia Adkins Randall, a marriage therapist (not theirs) who sold them the house to begin with but wanted to rent out a room to continue practicing her business from that address.

See, now you're talking.

 

[Belz...]

Does Trump represent you?

He does represent the US, even those who don't agree with him.

Do his opinions indicate anything about your opinions?

Irrelevant. Other countries sure seem to take him as the US representative.

He is your president, after all.

He's not president of the world, so no, he isn't.

My representative is Justin Trudeau, even if I disagree with him on a number of things. Do you really expect a letter signed by all ABA members or some sort of poll of their members?

 

[BStrong]

Change the cufflinks to a donkey and it works for 1998 too.

We may be approaching a point where the notion of due process will no longer be a valid concern if the issue is sexual abuse/misconduct. The general consensus in the media seems to be that if an allegation of abuse or misconduct is made against someone that alone is enough and no further investigation or discussion need be considered.

I wonder what Lady Justice would make of that?

 

[River]

no.
The goal of getting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is to reverse Women's rights, as many Republicans have stated in one form or another. And they are using a fake-legal process (like using Mitchell) to ram a candidate through without allowing for the constitutional right of the Senators to vet him.

Republicans are abusing their majority to politicize the Supreme Court.
No wonder Lady Justice doesn't want to play along.

Do we all support equal rights here? What rights are we talking about?

 

[Ziggurat]

Irrelevant. Other countries sure seem to take him as the US representative.

To the extent that he has authority to command the executive branch, and the executive branch is what they need to interact with, yes.

The president of the ABA has no equivalent authority with which anyone outside the ABA need interact.

 

[Belz...]

Do we all support equal rights here? What rights are we talking about?


View attachment 39015

Sowell's not wrong on the principle, but he apparently forgets that the term 'women's rights' is brought up when those using it feel that women, as a group, do not have, in fact, equal rights. Assuming they're correct, is it not justified to use this term?

 

[Belz...]

To the extent that he has authority to command the executive branch, and the executive branch is what they need to interact with, yes.

Not just that. He explicitly represents the US.

The president of the ABA has no equivalent authority with which anyone outside the ABA need interact.

Does he represent the ABA or not?

 

[johnny karate]

Change the cufflinks to a donkey and it works for 1998 too.

Too bad there was never a years-long investigation and impeachment hearings to look into all that.

We may be approaching a point where the notion of due process will no longer be a valid concern if the issue is sexual abuse/misconduct. The general consensus in the media seems to be that if an allegation of abuse or misconduct is made against someone that alone is enough and no further investigation or discussion need be considered.

I wonder what Lady Justice would make of that?

She’d probably get a laugh from the ridiculous fanfic you just wrote.

 

[theprestige]

How the hell do you figure that? Are accusations somehow not supposed to be made? Perhaps she should wait until he's retired?

It is a long-standing principle of criminal justice that the accused be able to confront their accuser. Ford discarded this principle when she leveled criminal accusations while attempting to remain anonymous. While the confirmation hearings are not themselves a criminal trial, Ford clearly violated the principle, and acted in a spirit of suppressing justice.

Another way in which she suppressed justice was in the venue she chose for her accusations. If she knows that someone committed a crime, and she knows that an investigation will produce credible evidence of the crime, then she should be testifying not before Congress, but before a judge.

In my opinion it is also a suppression of justice for her to call on Congress for an FBI investigation into her claims. Obviously she does not want to get justice from this investigation. If she wanted that, she'd be in court. She wants satisfaction. The FBI is basically cast in the role of her therapy animal. It is not justice to try to use law enforcement agencies in this way.

There's some irony here, too. If she'd taken her credible evidence of a crime to the proper authorities, it would have been discovered during the FBI's initial background check or earlier, and probably torpedoed Kavanaugh's nomination right out of the gate. Now justice is pretty much off the table, and she's having to fight pretty hard just to have a chance at satisfaction. I wonder how satisfying it will actually be, once she counts the cost.