Donald Trump
Comments
-
With all his wriggling around the questions, not being able to give a seemingly straight forward answer to perfectly normal questions, he looked like a teenager who'd just been caught around the back of the bike sheds having a fag ...nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:Aren't semantics important in understanding the letter of the law? I thought that's part of the vetting process he's going through in confirmation hearings. If he gets semantics wrong what other aspects of law can he get wrong?
Personally I think he'd be good at the job except I believe he's too partisan. I think he's got the intellect and understanding of the law. Although there was a thing about being accused of plagiarising work at Oxford University.
You'd be surprised how many law students I have caught for plagiarism.
I think to all intents and purposes, what they said amounted to a denial. Nathan J Robinson is reading too much into it. Judge did actually deny it in any case - 'I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr Ford described". That's really the denial that matters. Her friend also said she doesn't know Kavanaugh. Denying she knew him is basically a denial of being at a small party with him. But like I said, I don't think this part of his testimony is a big deal.
The prosecutor has now released a memo. regarding the accusations. Ford doesn't come off well.
That's no surprise. Has she released any findings on Kavanaugh's testimony?
It does seem quite simple for them - if you think he should be confirmed, you'll overlook all sorts of things. If you think he shouldn't, you won't. It seems a terrible way to choose judges for lifetime appointment to the supreme court.
I'll be honest and say I don't know how ours are selected here and whether it's better or worse.
No because Kavanaugh wasn't the one making the accusation. She stated (as expected) that no prosecutor would bring a criminal case and it wouldn't even meet the standard of proof for a civil case (no surprises there). She said it was actually less credible than a he said/she said situation.
Frankly, I didn't care if Brett Kavanaugh was or wasn't confirmed before this What bothers me is his not being confirmed on the basis of this unsubstantiated allegation (and be sure that would be the reason why he isn't confirmed). He's basically had his reputation destroyed. In the UK he's be well within his rights to sue for defamation (that includes many journalists and Democratic senators who made statements outside the chamber so not protected) but I don't think it's the same in the USA. It's become a witch hunt (as has much of the #metoo movement) and they never end well. Mob justice is no justice at all.
It's not the sort of response I'd expect from a Judge - I suppose he's used to being on the other side of the table ...0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:But if the bench was balanced to begin with (which was the case before this last spot came up since the incumbent being replaced was not partisan) then the court would need to agree. Consensus on a hung vote often leads to more moderate results. Perhaps it eventually becomes non-partisan.
So speculative since politicians never like to give up any power they hold.
Incidentally I don't think the current confirmation is any more sickening than past ones. It's always going to be the same with a partisan, political system confirming and advising on the chosen appointee.
There are 9 justices. Let's say Kavanaugh is nominated so, broadly speaking, you have 5 conservatives and 4 liberals. It would have to be a conservative who retired or died to balance it. I think it would end up just as partisan as it is now.0 -
nickice wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:Would a better option be the court appoints the replacement? That includes the person leaving if they're still alive. It might over time remove the partisan element of the court.
In the UK I believe the appointment of judges is by the Lord Chancellor. Who is appointed by the Queen under the advisement of the prime minister. Officially he out ranks the prime minister BTW. So effectively judges are appointed by a political appointee. One degree of separation from politics you could say but still political.
I think any system is going to be subject to bias. And it could end up with a system where you have a very Republican bench (as judges will tend to appoint others with similar views) and a very Democratic government. And that could last for forty years.
Having said that, watching people like Corey Booker and Kamala Harris grandstanding was pretty sickening.
There is stiff competition in that category. This is just the Republicans reaping what they sowed. Crying about partisanship from Graham and Kavanaugh himself is hilarious.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Frankly, I didn't care if Brett Kavanaugh was or wasn't confirmed before this What bothers me is his not being confirmed on the basis of this unsubstantiated allegation (and be sure that would be the reason why he isn't confirmed). He's basically had his reputation destroyed. In the UK he's be well within his rights to sue for defamation (that includes many journalists and Democratic senators who made statements outside the chamber so not protected) but I don't think it's the same in the USA. It's become a witch hunt (as has much of the #metoo movement) and they never end well. Mob justice is no justice at all.
This is what the Republicans want the US public to think.
He was already on a knife edge before the hearings, because of his conservative views and the 51-49 split in the Senate. If he is not confirmed, it will be because of him, not because of her. It only takes one reason to object to him - that could be his views on abortion, could be the withholding of the documents, could be his lying to the Senate in 2003 or 2006, could be his lying this year, could be his temperament, could be his partisanship, could be his wilful misinterpretation of evidence in this case. For any one of those, if two R senators decide he's not the right guy, he doesn't get confirmed.
There is a reason Mitch McConnell didn't want him to be the nominee.
There were never any complaints about his temperament before he was called upon to defend himself against an unsubstantiated allegation so I think that argument can be dismissed.
By the way, Roe v Wade is bad law. If it were overruled it wouldn't make abortion illegal in the USA. It would be a state matter and you can be pretty sure that it will be legal in many states.
This card was only played by the Democrats because they knew he was going to be confirmed.0 -
rjsterry wrote:nickice wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:Would a better option be the court appoints the replacement? That includes the person leaving if they're still alive. It might over time remove the partisan element of the court.
In the UK I believe the appointment of judges is by the Lord Chancellor. Who is appointed by the Queen under the advisement of the prime minister. Officially he out ranks the prime minister BTW. So effectively judges are appointed by a political appointee. One degree of separation from politics you could say but still political.
I think any system is going to be subject to bias. And it could end up with a system where you have a very Republican bench (as judges will tend to appoint others with similar views) and a very Democratic government. And that could last for forty years.
Having said that, watching people like Corey Booker and Kamala Harris grandstanding was pretty sickening.
There is stiff competition in that category. This is just the Republicans reaping what they sowed. Crying about partisanship from Graham and Kavanaugh himself is hilarious.
You do realise that Graham has a record of bipartisanship and is not very popular with his fellow Republicans as a result? And Kavanaugh's accusations of partisanship were 100% correct.0 -
Most people have what appears to be a reasonable temperament when they are comfortable, it's under pressure that they show their true colours.nickice wrote:There were never any complaints about his temperament before he was called upon to defend himself against an unsubstantiated allegation so I think that argument can be dismissed.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Most people have what appears to be a reasonable temperament when they are comfortable, it's under pressure that they show their true colours.nickice wrote:There were never any complaints about his temperament before he was called upon to defend himself against an unsubstantiated allegation so I think that argument can be dismissed.
The pressure of being declared guilty of a crime (based upon an unsubstantiated allegation) by most of the media and the opposition party? I think 'under pressure' is an understatement here.
I saw a good tweet about this-
"“The chief flaw with Capra’s Senator Jefferson Smith is that by making such a fuss over accusations that he was corrupt he proved that he didn’t have the required temperament to be a U.S. Senator.” Jen Rubin reviewing Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."0 -
Yes, he spent part of the hearing why it was perfectly OK for the Republicans to refuse to even consider Obama's nomination, but really really unfair that the Democrats were now being mean to Kavanaugh.
As for the pressure, what was Kavanaugh expecting from such a divided committee under such a divisive President? Polite enquiries about how his children are doing?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Yes, he spent part of the hearing why it was perfectly OK for the Republicans to refuse to even consider Obama's nomination, but really really unfair that the Democrats were now being mean to Kavanaugh.
As for the pressure, what was Kavanaugh expecting from such a divided committee under such a divisive President? Polite enquiries about how his children are doing.
The Republicans holding up the Garland nomination was based upon the interpretation of a precedent (probably not a particularly fair one) but it did not extend to calling Garland a sex offender. There is playing politics and then there is trying to destroy someone. The Democrats crossed a line here. And it will backfire. From what I know of the USA now, this has simply mobilized Republican voters for the mid-terms.0 -
Graham also posited the theory that Kavanaugh was too nice a person for the allegations to be true.
Trump has been open about wanting to slant the SC in a more conservative direction, overturning what had broadly been a balanced SC. From that point it could not be anything other than a partisan process. Strangely enough liberals feel that things like Roe v. Wade are worth fighting tooth and nail for. I suspect this will mobilise supporters of both sides of the argument.
By the way, one of Kavanaugh's Yale classmates has come forward to say that he is uncomfortable with parts Kavanaugh's testimony.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Graham also posited the theory that Kavanaugh was too nice a person for the allegations to be true.
Trump has been open about wanting to slant the SC in a more conservative direction, overturning what had broadly been a balanced SC. From that point it could not be anything other than a partisan process. Strangely enough liberals feel that things like Roe v. Wade are worth fighting tooth and nail for. I suspect this will mobilise supporters of both sides of the argument.
By the way, one of Kavanaugh's Yale classmates has come forward to say that he is uncomfortable with parts Kavanaugh's testimony.
Character clearly plays a role. And Kavanaugh's had allegations of a sexual nature made against him in his whole time as a judge. Even now, nobody has come forward relating to his professional career.
And they can fight for Roe v Wade all they like. It's a state issue and always should have been. Overturning Roe v Wade will not make abortion illegal. It will be down to individual states. And fighting tooth and nail for the right to abortion is a sickening as those in Ireland celebrating the right to have an abortion.
SC judges are there to interpret the constitution. That's what they're there for.0 -
nickice wrote:...And they can fight for Roe v Wade all they like. It's a state issue and always should have been. Overturning Roe v Wade will not make abortion illegal. It will be down to individual states. And fighting tooth and nail for the right to abortion is a sickening as those in Ireland celebrating the right to have an abortion.
SC judges are there to interpret the constitution. That's what they're there for.
Well that is exactly how this nomination has been sold to conservative Americans. For the life of me I cannot see how celebrating the repeal of Ireland's abortion law is sickening, but we are clearly not on the same page here.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
They might be relieved that if they one day need an abortion they can get one but why celebrate? They're celebrating the right that at some time in the future they can kill their babies? Horrible.0
-
So he's comparable to Jimmy Saville or any of the thousands of priests who abused children, using professional privilege to the last despite the allegations.nickice wrote:
Character clearly plays a role. And Kavanaugh's had allegations of a sexual nature made against him in his whole time as a judge. Even now, nobody has come forward relating to his professional career.
That's not a good defence.0 -
0
-
That is really not what they were celebrating. Go and speak to someone who has actually been through that situation: an unwanted or life-threatening pregnancy. Then maybe review what you have just written.nickice wrote:They might be relieved that if they one day need an abortion they can get one but why celebrate? They're celebrating the right that at some time in the future they can kill their babies? Horrible.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
PhilipPirrip wrote:
So he's comparable to Jimmy Saville or any of the thousands of priests who abused children, using professional privilege to the last despite the allegations.nickice wrote:
Character clearly plays a role. And Kavanaugh's had allegations of a sexual nature made against him in his whole time as a judge. Even now, nobody has come forward relating to his professional career.
That's not a good defence.
Jimmy Saville's crimes were well known and covered up or at the very least ignored by several high-level figures. As for priests, they were covered for by the Catholic church. If there had been any rumours about Brett Kavanaugh, they would have been well known a long time ago. More importantly, you'd see more and more credible accusations now.0 -
rjsterry wrote:
That is really not what they were celebrating. Go and speak to someone who has actually been through that situation: an unwanted or life-threatening pregnancy. Then maybe review what you have just written.nickice wrote:They might be relieved that if they one day need an abortion they can get one but why celebrate? They're celebrating the right that at some time in the future they can kill their babies? Horrible.
You'll rarely find anyone who would advocate for the banning of an abortion if you have a life-threatening pregnancy. Abortion was already allowed for such cases before the referendum. Once again, you're using the old trick of a rare event (the life of the mother) to justify access to abortions for all. Rape is also used in this context. And I have spoken to women who've had unwanted pregnancies and I disagree with their decision to have an abortion.0 -
Your opinion pales into a distant insignificance compared to those who are pregnant.nickice wrote:Rape is also used in this context. And I have spoken to women who've had unwanted pregnancies and I disagree with their decision to have an abortion.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Your opinion pales into a distant insignificance compared to those who are pregnant.nickice wrote:Rape is also used in this context. And I have spoken to women who've had unwanted pregnancies and I disagree with their decision to have an abortion.
Society has an interest in not allowing the taking of life even if that life is a baby that has yet to be born. If it didn't, we would allow full-term abortions. Only a special kind of crazy person advocates them.0 -
Your opinion.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:Your opinion.
1)Do you agree that its in the interests of society not to allow the taking of life?
2)Do you agree that an unborn baby is alive (it becomes a new life at the moment of conception with its own unique DNA)?
3) If you disagree with 2 (I won't do you the disservice of asking you if you agree with 1) then why not support full-term abortions (I'm assuming you don't)0 -
2 just shows your ignorance of the stages of development and the law on abortion or that you're some kind of religious whack-job.nickice wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Your opinion.
1)Do you agree that its in the interests of society not to allow the taking of life?
2)Do you agree that an unborn baby is alive (it becomes a new life at the moment of conception with its own unique DNA)?
3) If you disagree with 2 (I won't do you the disservice of asking you if you agree with 1) then why not support full-term abortions (I'm assuming you don't)0 -
PhilipPirrip wrote:
2 just shows your ignorance of the stages of development and the law on abortion or that you're some kind of religious whack-job.nickice wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Your opinion.
1)Do you agree that its in the interests of society not to allow the taking of life?
2)Do you agree that an unborn baby is alive (it becomes a new life at the moment of conception with its own unique DNA)?
3) If you disagree with 2 (I won't do you the disservice of asking you if you agree with 1) then why not support full-term abortions (I'm assuming you don't)
Go for the personal insults. Nice (I'm an atheist not that it's any of your business).
When does life begin? Legally, it has to be one moment. Logically, that has to be conception or birth.
The ECtHR tried to weasel their way out of this issue as they didn't want to rule that an abortion is a breach of the right to life.0 -
Once again? Old trick? You've picked one of those two reasons, not me. Not wanting to bring an unwanted child into the world child is just as valid a reason for an abortion in my book. If you don't agree that's fine, but no-one can ever ask you to bear the full consequences of that point of view.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Once again? Old trick? You've picked one of those two reasons, not me. Not wanting to bring an unwanted child into the world child is just as valid a reason for an abortion in my book. If you don't agree that's fine, but no-one can ever ask you to bear the full consequences of that point of view.
I picked it's the usual one that's brought up. If you think an unwanted pregnancy is valid reason for an abortion (which I find despicable) do you advocate full-term abortions?0 -
My opinion is as equally insignificant on this issue.nickice wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Your opinion.
1)Do you agree that its in the interests of society not to allow the taking of life?
2)Do you agree that an unborn baby is alive (it becomes a new life at the moment of conception with its own unique DNA)?
3) If you disagree with 2 (I won't do you the disservice of asking you if you agree with 1) then why not support full-term abortions (I'm assuming you don't)
Carry on if you wish, but your opinion counts for nowt.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
My opinion is as equally insignificant on this issue.nickice wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Your opinion.
1)Do you agree that its in the interests of society not to allow the taking of life?
2)Do you agree that an unborn baby is alive (it becomes a new life at the moment of conception with its own unique DNA)?
3) If you disagree with 2 (I won't do you the disservice of asking you if you agree with 1) then why not support full-term abortions (I'm assuming you don't)
Carry on if you wish, but your opinion counts for nowt.
Way to avoid the questions...0 -
nickice wrote:PhilipPirrip wrote:
2 just shows your ignorance of the stages of development and the law on abortion or that you're some kind of religious whack-job.nickice wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Your opinion.
1)Do you agree that its in the interests of society not to allow the taking of life?
2)Do you agree that an unborn baby is alive (it becomes a new life at the moment of conception with its own unique DNA)?
3) If you disagree with 2 (I won't do you the disservice of asking you if you agree with 1) then why not support full-term abortions (I'm assuming you don't)
Go for the personal insults. Nice (I'm an atheist not that it's any of your business).
When does life begin? Legally, it has to be one moment. Logically, that has to be conception or birth.
The ECtHR tried to weasel their way out of this issue as they didn't want to rule that an abortion is a breach of the right to life.
Why? There are many points at which you could set that threshold. Both sperm and ovum are alive before one fertlises the other. If you want to set it at fertilisation, consider that 50% of all fertilised eggs never even successfully implant in the uterus and as far as anyone is aware no conception took place.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:nickice wrote:PhilipPirrip wrote:
2 just shows your ignorance of the stages of development and the law on abortion or that you're some kind of religious whack-job.nickice wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Your opinion.
1)Do you agree that its in the interests of society not to allow the taking of life?
2)Do you agree that an unborn baby is alive (it becomes a new life at the moment of conception with its own unique DNA)?
3) If you disagree with 2 (I won't do you the disservice of asking you if you agree with 1) then why not support full-term abortions (I'm assuming you don't)
Go for the personal insults. Nice (I'm an atheist not that it's any of your business).
When does life begin? Legally, it has to be one moment. Logically, that has to be conception or birth.
The ECtHR tried to weasel their way out of this issue as they didn't want to rule that an abortion is a breach of the right to life.
Why? There are many points at which you could set that threshold. Both sperm and ovum are alive before one fertlises the other. If you want to set it at fertilisation, consider that 50% of all fertilised eggs never even successfully implant in the uterus and as far as anyone is aware no conception took place.
Sperm and eggs don't develop into humans if they are not killed. They're gametes. A zygote is a new life form that will.0
