|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 25 2018 22:51 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 15:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 25 2018 14:29 hunts wrote:
I almost hope they bullishly push kevinaugh through despite all the accusations and show the world just how few fucks they give about anything but the corporations who hold their leashes. The damage of having him on the supreme court might be undone by impeaching him in light of such accusations, or simply a democrat president saying enough is enough and stacking the supreme court to undo the damage this clown show has done. But I'm not sure if the republican party can recover from the damage that getting this guy through would cause. So this is actually the best of all possible outcomes for Democratic policy goals. If Kavanaugh gets dumped, they can always 51 vote a lame duck Federalist Society clone in December who doesn't have a rapey past. There has to be at least one. But Justice KAVANAUGH is impeachment bait and a great get out the vote driver in 2018/2020. I could see KAVANAUGH being the first impeached justice in a Democratic senate. Why not put some investigatory resources into seeing whether he lied during his hearings? Dems have nothing to lose by asking and everything to gain. EDIT: also, justice KAVANAUGH is a realistic threat on THOMAS. If KAV goes down for lying about his rapey past, THOMAS should be next for all the perjury he did over Anita Hill. This seems very risky or no? When was last time politics "messed" with the surpreme court by removing a judge or adding additional judges. Arent surpreme court justices seen like "gods" in the usa,untouchable. Removing a judge will feel like an attack on the constitution directly for many americans (even though it isn't off course). I don't think democrats would ever do this,it seems way to risky and also create a precedent. And if kavanaugh is rejected,the republicans wont nominate a lame duck next,they will go for a similar conservative judge. If they want stop kavanaugh they have to do it before he is sworn in,after is to late.
In the case that there ends up being substance and evidence behind the accusations, it would be normal and appropriate to remove him. He's testified under threat of perjury that none of this happened and they're all fabrications (and NOT that he doesn't know because of his own intoxication, or that he thinks it's true but shouldn't disqualify him). Federal judges have been impeached in the past decade, this would just be a little more widely known.
The ones that would really provoke a crisis is court-packing. Not since Franklin D. Roosevelt has there been a large Congressional and Presidential effort to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court because of the court's ideology.
|
On September 25 2018 23:11 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 23:04 Plansix wrote:
There is no way they are even going to discuss removing Thomas. That is wild speculation. It’s also about having leverage for reforms such as term limits and so on. Take the following example: demand 12 year term limits, demand the resignation of every judge who is been on the court for longer than 12 years, threaten to impeach Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, threaten to pack the court. All in order to destroy the current rightwing activist court that could e.g. easily undo medicare for all as freedom destroying government coercion, or could destroy labor rights etc. I don’t know if it works, of course, but these are the sort of tactics Dems should consider. Similarly, they should make Washington and PR a state, undo gerrymandering, have a national voting holiday, restore felon voting rights. If they were genuinely interested in gaining power that’s what they would do.
Term limits are a terrible idea, but otherwise, that strategy sounds good.
|
A lot could happen between now and Thursday. Avenatti is claiming his client will come forward w/in 36 hours.
|
I still surprised that Kavanaugh went on Fox News last night to give the classic political TV interview that most politicians give. It isn’t the move that any judicial nominee has pulled in modern history. And he did it on the network that not going to reach the majority of people skeptical about him. Playing to the base isn’t going to make him more likely to be confirmed.
|
Based on all these tales of drunken Kav the chav doing stuff he then doesn't remember because he was too drunk at the time, the odds that he's a legit alcoholic philanderer get better by the day. God only knows what shock jock Avenatti is going to reveal lol.
|
The old quotes from the Ken Star investigation are really gold right now too. His justification for asking probing, personal questions to show Bill’s terrible, deviant behavior are really coming around to bite him.
|
I think if a FBI investigation into Kavanaugh is triggered the nomination will be pulled. All this sexual assault stuff is bad, but ultimately can't be definitively proven (though he certainly looks really bad in the court of public opinion, and personally I believe Ford). But as the cloud around his grows darker, the chances of a more thorough investigation increases. The juicy stuff is in his financial records, like why he spent $200k on baseball tickets.
|
Isn't there a vetting process that's supposed to flag up potential issues before someone is nominated? I guess that sort of thing doesn't really work in the Trump administration.
|
On September 25 2018 23:50 Jockmcplop wrote:
Isn't there a vetting process that's supposed to flag up potential issues before someone is nominated? I guess that sort of thing doesn't really work in the Trump administration.
It is not a perfect process in any way. A person with an active domestic abuse case worked at the White House for some time. He passed the FBI vetting process. It isn’t possible for them to get everything, especially if the person is trying obfuscate some aspects of their life.
|
On September 25 2018 23:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 23:50 Jockmcplop wrote:
Isn't there a vetting process that's supposed to flag up potential issues before someone is nominated? I guess that sort of thing doesn't really work in the Trump administration. It is not a perfect process in any way. A person with an active domestic abuse case worked at the White House for some time. He passed the FBI vetting process. It isn’t possible for them to get everything, especially if the person is trying obfuscate some aspects of their life.
I didn't mean a legally enforceable means of vetting someone like the FBI, but a more political 'let's try and not fuck this really important thing up' kind of vetting.
I would have thought Trump would have investigators specifically tasked with looking into the nominee's past.
|
There's reason to think the vetting process, informal or not, was circumvented here given that Kav may have been handpicked by Trump, Kennedy, or both.
|
Fitting that trump is literally getting laughed off the stage at the UN. You can see his damaged ego on his face as it happens. The man had such a small mind. Thank God there are chaperones for him in the White House. Otherwise we might really be at risk as a country.
|
On September 25 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:
I still surprised that Kavanaugh went on Fox News last night to give the classic political TV interview that most politicians give. It isn’t the move that any judicial nominee has pulled in modern history. And he did it on the network that not going to reach the majority of people skeptical about him. Playing to the base isn’t going to make him more likely to be confirmed.
I don't think any other network would have given him the fair interview that he wanted, so going on Fox is still going to be more coverage than the alternatives.
|
On September 26 2018 00:21 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:
I still surprised that Kavanaugh went on Fox News last night to give the classic political TV interview that most politicians give. It isn’t the move that any judicial nominee has pulled in modern history. And he did it on the network that not going to reach the majority of people skeptical about him. Playing to the base isn’t going to make him more likely to be confirmed. I don't think any other network would have given him the fair interview that he wanted, so going on Fox is still going to be more coverage than the alternatives.
By “fair” you mean friendly and with softball questions? That was an performance last night, not an interview. It wasn’t even live.
|
On September 25 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:
I still surprised that Kavanaugh went on Fox News last night to give the classic political TV interview that most politicians give. It isn’t the move that any judicial nominee has pulled in modern history. And he did it on the network that not going to reach the majority of people skeptical about him. Playing to the base isn’t going to make him more likely to be confirmed.
This was also a really weird play to me. They treat it like a politician in the middle of a scandal instead of simply dismissing it and denying everything. All the interview did was add credibility to his accusers and throw away any narrative that might help (like the accusation coming after the vetting process).
On September 26 2018 00:21 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:
I still surprised that Kavanaugh went on Fox News last night to give the classic political TV interview that most politicians give. It isn’t the move that any judicial nominee has pulled in modern history. And he did it on the network that not going to reach the majority of people skeptical about him. Playing to the base isn’t going to make him more likely to be confirmed. I don't think any other network would have given him the fair interview that he wanted, so going on Fox is still going to be more coverage than the alternatives.
You're never going to get a "fair" interview when you have any sexual harassment or assault allegations against you. It doesn't get better until at the very best case years later for you.
|
On September 26 2018 00:21 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:
I still surprised that Kavanaugh went on Fox News last night to give the classic political TV interview that most politicians give. It isn’t the move that any judicial nominee has pulled in modern history. And he did it on the network that not going to reach the majority of people skeptical about him. Playing to the base isn’t going to make him more likely to be confirmed. I don't think any other network would have given him the fair interview that he wanted, so going on Fox is still going to be more coverage than the alternatives.
not sure what you mean by fair, but the alternatives are not to go on a tv network and do an interview while being the supreme court nominee, since that's unprecedented to do in the first place?
|
By fair, I meant the kind of interview he wanted. Obviously he didn't want to answer serious questions about his past with an interviewer that was interested in finding the truth.
|
On September 26 2018 00:32 chocorush wrote:
By fair, I meant the kind of interview he wanted. That's a very strange definition of fair. In fact it's kind of the opposite of fair.
|
On September 26 2018 00:26 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:
I still surprised that Kavanaugh went on Fox News last night to give the classic political TV interview that most politicians give. It isn’t the move that any judicial nominee has pulled in modern history. And he did it on the network that not going to reach the majority of people skeptical about him. Playing to the base isn’t going to make him more likely to be confirmed. This was also a really weird play to me. They treat it like a politician in the middle of a scandal instead of simply dismissing it and denying everything. All the interview did was add credibility to his accusers and throw away any narrative that might help (like the accusation coming after the vetting process). Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 00:21 chocorush wrote:On September 25 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:
I still surprised that Kavanaugh went on Fox News last night to give the classic political TV interview that most politicians give. It isn’t the move that any judicial nominee has pulled in modern history. And he did it on the network that not going to reach the majority of people skeptical about him. Playing to the base isn’t going to make him more likely to be confirmed. I don't think any other network would have given him the fair interview that he wanted, so going on Fox is still going to be more coverage than the alternatives. You're never going to get a "fair" interview when you have any sexual harassment or assault allegations against you. It doesn't get better until at the very best case years later for you.
Kavanaugh seems to have gotten this far by flying under the radar of almost everyone, even as a federal court judge. But now that he is in the national spotlight as this conservative good boy judge, a lot of his former classmates are more than willing to poke holes in that narrative.
And the whole thing with him and his buddies calling themselves “Renata alum”(Renata being the last name of a girl from another school they saw as a conquest) really paints a picture of him and that school. Like did a single adult look at that year book to approve that?
|
On September 26 2018 00:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 00:32 chocorush wrote:
By fair, I meant the kind of interview he wanted. That's a very strange definition of fair. In fact it's kind of the opposite of fair.
I forgot my sarcasm quotes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
