Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[SCOTUS] : Gorsuch confirmed by GOP after filibuster nuked

1246760

Posts

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    I agree with this in spirit. The article we've jumped off from works against this is nothing more than a former staffer for a current Democratic Senator starting unsubstantiated rumors.
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    My agenda being..?

    ....


    You are suggesting that we shouldn't believe what someone who worked for a democrat said because she would have things to gain politically by it, but we should totally believe the things said by people who work for a republican because why would they lie, it isn't like they have anything to gain from that.

    Do you see your hypocracy here? I am not saying he totally has it our for women because of this rumor. I am saying, it is okay to ask him about his opinion on maternity leave, either with or without this rumor.

    Your agenda is apparently, from the bolded, to intentionally and repeatedly confuse the past for the present when it suits you, as well as conflating the motivations of a former law clerk for a judge and a former staffer for a politician. Also to suggest I'm saying it's Sisk's former job that makes her unbelievable, when it's 12 contrary statements that do so, while you are actually confusing current and former employment to actually cast doubt on the 11 contradictory people for no reason.

    Your intent seems to be creating confusion and hoping to get a rumor to stick to him, because that's what you keep doing.

    I am sorry for that, I will edit my two 'intentional and repeated' posts to the past tense 'worked' right away. And that second part is true. I don't see the difference in motivation between a former staffer for a democratic senator lying or the motivation of 11 former clerks to defend their former boss against a specific incident they have no knowledge of by says 'he is so nice, he wouldn't do that'

    And, no, I feel I have been pretty clear in my statements. I will say it again. Judges should be questioned on things they might rule on. This judge might rule on maternity leave in a corporate workplace. This judge is ALSO rumored to have opinions about maternity leave that seem bad. Asking him about his opinion on maternity leave should be fine.

    I mean, sure, if someone asked him "Hey dude, I heard from a totally reliable source that you hate women and think babies are a ploy to get free money without having to work" that would be off limits. Pretty far off limits.

    But to say "Do you think women have a right to maternity leave?" is as fair as fair can be.

    Burtletoy on
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    edited March 20
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    If I had to predict I'd say it'll be about as tainted as the Bush admin was from Bush v Gore

    as in, people are always going to gripe about it but nobody's going to try and nullify the rulings

    Far worse than that. Bush vs Gore was contained, and fingers could be pointed in all kinds of directions. This would literally be a problem with Gorsuch. ANY time he votes against a liberal viewpoint it would erode the courts ability to function.

    meh

    I think Bush v Gore was greater subversion of our democratic process and SCOTUS didn't really have the authority to make that ruling

    Garland's denial was entirely within the senate's power. Granted they did it in a shitty and cowardly way, but there's no denying that they have the power to reject any and all of the president's appointees. They probably shouldn't have this power but our constitution is pretty stupid in a lot of ways.

    Aioua on
    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    RiemannLives
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    Hopefully zero. Stealing a SCOTUS seat by forcing a constitutional crisis is both craven and extremely dangerous.

    If the GOP had even held hearings on Garland, an aging moderate's moderate, I could be convinced otherwise. But as is? No chance.

    Depending how the future goes, stealing that seat and upsetting the status quo might end up destabilizing a country already closer to the tipping point than most people think.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
    shrykeSpoitArdolLoisLaneN1tSt4lkerLabelMegaMekjdarksun
  • PolaritiePolaritie Oh I didn't see this box. Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    If I had to predict I'd say it'll be about as tainted as the Bush admin was from Bush v Gore

    as in, people are always going to gripe about it but nobody's going to try and nullify the rulings

    Far worse than that. Bush vs Gore was contained, and fingers could be pointed in all kinds of directions. This would literally be a problem with Gorsuch. ANY time he votes against a liberal viewpoint it would erode the courts ability to function.

    meh

    I think Bush v Gore was greater subversion of our democratic process and SCOTUS didn't really have the authority to make that ruling

    Garland's denial was entirely within the senate's power. Granted they did it in a shitty and cowardly way, but there's no denying that they have the power to reject any and all of the president's appointees. They probably shouldn't have this power but our constitution is pretty stupid in a lot of ways.

    They didnt deny the nomination. They denied the power to nominate, because by acting that way they prevented further nominations. Had they voted him down Obama would have nominated another person...

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    PSN: AbEntropy
    DarkPrimusMillshrykeSpoitkimeEdith UpwardsArdolAistanKraintYamiB.HefflingLabeljdarksunMan in the Mists
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    I absolutely would have given Garland a hearing. He deserved one, and I think would have made a fine Justice.

    spool32 on
    wanderingzepherinJoeUserLord PalingtonKayne Red Robe
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    Ah, so today was just for opening statements

    Boy is my face red

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    If I had to predict I'd say it'll be about as tainted as the Bush admin was from Bush v Gore

    as in, people are always going to gripe about it but nobody's going to try and nullify the rulings

    Far worse than that. Bush vs Gore was contained, and fingers could be pointed in all kinds of directions. This would literally be a problem with Gorsuch. ANY time he votes against a liberal viewpoint it would erode the courts ability to function.

    meh

    I think Bush v Gore was greater subversion of our democratic process and SCOTUS didn't really have the authority to make that ruling

    Garland's denial was entirely within the senate's power. Granted they did it in a shitty and cowardly way, but there's no denying that they have the power to reject any and all of the president's appointees. They probably shouldn't have this power but our constitution is pretty stupid in a lot of ways.

    They didnt deny the nomination. They denied the power to nominate, because by acting that way they prevented further nominations. Had they voted him down Obama would have nominated another person...

    Ehh, Obama could have withdrawn him and offered someone else, but he was never going to select a Scalia clone and the Senate Judiciary was clearly not even going to consider a moderate, so there was no movement possible.

    I think the he would have been confirmed had he ever gotten out of committee.

    spool32 on
    zepherin
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    Ah, so today was just for opening statements

    Boy is my face red

    From falling asleep at your desk?

    (I once fell asleep in math class and woke up with a calculator imprint on my face :rotate: )

    zepherinKruite
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I agree with this in spirit. The article we've jumped off from works against this is nothing more than a former staffer for a current Democratic Senator starting unsubstantiated rumors.
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    My agenda being..?

    ....


    You are suggesting that we shouldn't believe what someone who worked for a democrat said because she would have things to gain politically by it, but we should totally believe the things said by people who work for a republican because why would they lie, it isn't like they have anything to gain from that.

    Do you see your hypocracy here? I am not saying he totally has it our for women because of this rumor. I am saying, it is okay to ask him about his opinion on maternity leave, either with or without this rumor.

    Your agenda is apparently, from the bolded, to intentionally and repeatedly confuse the past for the present when it suits you, as well as conflating the motivations of a former law clerk for a judge and a former staffer for a politician. Also to suggest I'm saying it's Sisk's former job that makes her unbelievable, when it's 12 contrary statements that do so, while you are actually confusing current and former employment to actually cast doubt on the 11 contradictory people for no reason.

    Your intent seems to be creating confusion and hoping to get a rumor to stick to him, because that's what you keep doing.

    I am sorry for that, I will edit my two 'intentional and repeated' posts to the past tense 'worked' right away. And that second part is true. I don't see the difference in motivation between a former staffer for a democratic senator lying or the motivation of 11 former clerks to defend their former boss against a specific incident they have no knowledge of by says 'he is so nice, he wouldn't do that'

    And, no, I feel I have been pretty clear in my statements. I will say it again. Judges should be questioned on things they might rule on. This judge might rule on maternity leave in a corporate workplace. This judge is ALSO rumored to have opinions about maternity leave that seem bad. Asking him about his opinion on maternity leave should be fine.

    I mean, sure, if someone asked him "Hey dude, I heard from a totally reliable source that you hate women and think babies are a ploy to get free money without having to work" that would be off limits. Pretty far off limits.

    But to say "Do you think women have a right to maternity leave?" is as fair as fair can be.

    I think we're in agreement on that!

    BurtletoyJebus314
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    JoeUser wrote: »
    RealClearPolitics reporter here telling us Dems are already starting to cave on Gorsuch

    Democrats: either block this nomination or reveal yourselves as lily-livered, spineless, super-serviceable, rogues, knaves, and cowards.

    wandering on
    AiouaMatevBlankzillaNobodySo It GoesHakkekageJoeUserEdith UpwardsPolaritieArdolKrieghundAstaerethAistanskyknytLoisLaneRiemannLiveswazillaKraintchrisnlbrynhrtmnMartini_PhilosopherDoctorArchmjn6172SleepHexmage-PASquigieEinzelMegaMekemp123jdarksunRedTideMan in the MistslonelyahavaCalica
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus My baby, please show you to me fast. Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    If I had to predict I'd say it'll be about as tainted as the Bush admin was from Bush v Gore

    as in, people are always going to gripe about it but nobody's going to try and nullify the rulings

    Far worse than that. Bush vs Gore was contained, and fingers could be pointed in all kinds of directions. This would literally be a problem with Gorsuch. ANY time he votes against a liberal viewpoint it would erode the courts ability to function.

    meh

    I think Bush v Gore was greater subversion of our democratic process and SCOTUS didn't really have the authority to make that ruling

    Garland's denial was entirely within the senate's power. Granted they did it in a shitty and cowardly way, but there's no denying that they have the power to reject any and all of the president's appointees. They probably shouldn't have this power but our constitution is pretty stupid in a lot of ways.

    They didnt deny the nomination. They denied the power to nominate, because by acting that way they prevented further nominations. Had they voted him down Obama would have nominated another person...

    Ehh, Obama could have withdrawn him and offered someone else, but he was never going to select a Scalia clone and the Senate Judiciary was clearly not even going to consider a moderate, so there was no movement possible.

    I think the he would have been confirmed had he ever gotten out of committee.

    That's why they never took him out of committee, because he was a great choice that many Republicans themselves had touted as a great choice and so they wouldn't be able to justify not approving him as a nominee.

    They were fuckin' playing poker and Obama called their bluff, but it turned out that this tournament has a rule that you don't ever have to actually fucking play your cards.

    DarkPrimus on
    pregoptimussig.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    spool32shrykeSo It GoesArdolAistanLoisLaneN1tSt4lkerCommander ZoomYamiB.SleepFencingsaxLabelGnome-Interruptusemp123jdarksunMan in the Mists
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    And now an email chain is "evidence" and it's a "scandal".

    It's like trying to stand in the way of a moving truck when the cries of "problematic" start coming. Being wrong, or even Constitutionally illegitimate, isn't enough - he's not stupid, so he's got to be evil.

    Yes, actually. Diary entries, and email chains that help show the story as it happened are absolutely admissible evidence in criminal proceedings. I see no reason why this is somehow so different it would not be relevant. An email chain here is unbelievably relevant and strong evidence since there is no reason for it to exist if the allegations are false.

    Gnizmo on
    Phoenix-DmrondeaushrykePolaritieLoisLaneN1tSt4lkerSleepGnome-Interruptusemp123jdarksunMan in the MistsCalica
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    RealClearPolitics reporter here telling us Dems are already starting to cave on Gorsuch

    Democrats: either block this nomination or reveal yourselves as lily-livered, spineless, super-serviceable, rogues, knaves, and cowards.

    0marz9zdoylq.jpg

    No, bad Senator. Bad!

    I'd ask for a rolled up newspaper but we're not even supposed to joke about violence. Do senators dislike citrus, or is that cats?

    This is a no-win situation. Caving and letting it happen is a less desirable outcome than fighting to the end and making the GOP own it entirely. From refusal to even give Garland a shot, to whatever the outcome of this is (as noted, likely a Gorsuch confirmation), there is nothing to be gained from 'being reasonable' or 'playing nice'. The GOP got here by refusing to follow norms to their own ends, and the history books should show unanimous dissent in the face of that obstruction and the fruit borne from that tree.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
    mrondeauShortyMatevKnight_So It GoesHakkekageEdith UpwardsArdolTetraRayAistanN1tSt4lkerbrynhrtmnLovelySquigieemp123jdarksunMan in the Mists
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    And now an email chain is "evidence" and it's a "scandal".

    It's like trying to stand in the way of a moving truck when the cries of "problematic" start coming. Being wrong, or even Constitutionally illegitimate, isn't enough - he's not stupid, so he's got to be evil.

    Yes, actually. Diary entries, and email chains that help show the story as it happened are absolutely admissible evidence in criminal proceedings. I see no reason why this is somehow so different it would not be relevant. An email chain here is unbelievably relevant and strong evidence since there is no reason for it to exist if the allegations are false.

    They are only evidence of what one person believed happened, at best. An account already refuted. I won't go further without more information.

    A question I can't answer on mobile: date of the allegation compared to release date of Trump's list of potential picks?

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    His clerk's aren't a refutation, Spool. You can generate responses like that from people that knew serial killers. They weren't in the room with him then.

    The only thing close is the classmates comment, and even that isn't a truly a refutation.

    The question: the comments are from April 2016. I don't think Trump has announced anything concrete then.

    Phoenix-D on
    ForarmrondeauGnizmoArdolLoisLaneKraintKetBraGnome-Interruptusemp123jdarksunMan in the MistsCalica
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »
    RealClearPolitics reporter here telling us Dems are already starting to cave on Gorsuch


    Screw you Bennet, grow some fucking spine.

    ShortymrondeauLoisLaneCommander ZoombrynhrtmnTraceLovelyLabelSquigieemp123jdarksunRedTideCalica
  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    Did anyone ask him his thoughts on the 9th Circuit ruling on the Muslim ban? Because I think that's probably the most pertinent question, as it would test the waters on whether or not he's going to be one of Trump's yes-men or not.

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython | PSN: Zaithon
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 100 Tauren Shaman
    spool32Sleep
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    I also disagree with the fundamental premise. In this case, two wrongs are perhaps the only way to make a right. The GOP cannot be allowed to steal a seat with no repercussions. Either they are the ones who destroy the fillibuster, or we wait for the wheel of democracy to turn again.

    Trump has already launched his 2020 campaign, so even by their own rules we can't appoint a justice right now.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
    mrondeaushrykeLabelSquigieGnome-InterruptusOneAngryPossumemp123jdarksunMan in the MistsCalica
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »

    The question: the comments are from April 2016. I don't think Trump has announced anything concrete then.

    List was released on May 18, so nothing there.

    Reading her facebook posts, I am more comfortable dismissing her. The original post is marked "tl;dr rant patriarchy", says that the situation in question was a hypothetical jumping-off point (which she denies later), rages about "rich white men" and their attitudes toward women and the value of public service but still uses a sexual insult for him ("toolbox"). She's advised to get corroboration but apparently did not, and her letter with the dean is only to set up a face-to-face about which we know nothing except that no action was taken.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    spool32 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »

    The question: the comments are from April 2016. I don't think Trump has announced anything concrete then.

    List was released on May 18, so nothing there.

    Reading her facebook posts, I am more comfortable dismissing her. The original post is marked "tl;dr rant patriarchy", says that the situation in question was a hypothetical jumping-off point (which she denies later), rages about "rich white men" and their attitudes toward women and the value of public service but still uses a sexual insult for him ("toolbox"). She's advised to get corroboration but apparently did not, and her letter with the dean is only to set up a face-to-face about which we know nothing except that no action was taken.

    You've been dismissing her from the first post about this. Hopefully you can at least understand why other people may not dismiss her claims so easily.

    I have never heard of "toolbox" being something sexual, btw. That's a new one to me.

    RiemannLivesStiltsshrykeHakkekageSleepLovelyKetBraGnome-InterruptusMegaMekjdarksunMan in the MistsCalica
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Toolbox = tool = dick.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    RealClearPolitics reporter here telling us Dems are already starting to cave on Gorsuch


    Screw you Bennet, grow some fucking spine.

    There's apparently weird Colorado politics involved. Gorsuch's family is supposedly a big deal out there.

    That said, he was just re-elected so take no prisoners.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    And now an email chain is "evidence" and it's a "scandal".

    It's like trying to stand in the way of a moving truck when the cries of "problematic" start coming. Being wrong, or even Constitutionally illegitimate, isn't enough - he's not stupid, so he's got to be evil.

    Yes, actually. Diary entries, and email chains that help show the story as it happened are absolutely admissible evidence in criminal proceedings. I see no reason why this is somehow so different it would not be relevant. An email chain here is unbelievably relevant and strong evidence since there is no reason for it to exist if the allegations are false.

    They are only evidence of what one person believed happened, at best. An account already refuted. I won't go further without more information.

    A question I can't answer on mobile: date of the allegation compared to release date of Trump's list of potential picks?

    Refuted by whom, precisely? So far as I know, no other students have come forward one way or the other. I would be interested in hearing other accounts though. The dismissive tone here is pretty telling here though. You claim the people coming forward offer definitive proof over an event of which they have zero first hand knowledge, and on the other you have a first hand account thrown away as what the "person believed happened, at best." One of these two meets the evidentiary standards of the courts, and the other does not.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »

    The question: the comments are from April 2016. I don't think Trump has announced anything concrete then.

    List was released on May 18, so nothing there.

    Reading her facebook posts, I am more comfortable dismissing her. The original post is marked "tl;dr rant patriarchy", says that the situation in question was a hypothetical jumping-off point (which she denies later), rages about "rich white men" and their attitudes toward women and the value of public service but still uses a sexual insult for him ("toolbox"). She's advised to get corroboration but apparently did not, and her letter with the dean is only to set up a face-to-face about which we know nothing except that no action was taken.

    You've been dismissing her from the first post about this. Hopefully you can at least understand why other people may not dismiss her claims so easily.

    I know there's a sentiment that runs like
    1. GOP bad on women's issues.
    2. Gorsuch conservative.
    3. Gorsuch assumed bad until proven otherwise.

    There seems to be nothing concrete to aproach this angle with, but as I think we've mostly agreed on it's still a valid line of questioning independent of the rumor.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »

    The question: the comments are from April 2016. I don't think Trump has announced anything concrete then.

    List was released on May 18, so nothing there.

    Reading her facebook posts, I am more comfortable dismissing her. The original post is marked "tl;dr rant patriarchy", says that the situation in question was a hypothetical jumping-off point (which she denies later), rages about "rich white men" and their attitudes toward women and the value of public service but still uses a sexual insult for him ("toolbox"). She's advised to get corroboration but apparently did not, and her letter with the dean is only to set up a face-to-face about which we know nothing except that no action was taken.

    You've been dismissing her from the first post about this. Hopefully you can at least understand why other people may not dismiss her claims so easily.

    I know there's a sentiment that runs like
    1. GOP bad on women's issues.
    2. Gorsuch conservative.
    3. Gorsuch assumed bad until proven otherwise.

    There seems to be nothing concrete to aproach this angle with, but as I think we've mostly agreed on it's still a valid line of questioning independent of the rumor.

    How about, someone using words in a Facebook post that you generally bristle at (patriarchy, toolbox, rich white men) doesn't mean they are lying? How about considering her motives (as you apparently thought of by asking when Trump's list came out) and seeing that she made the post before the list was announced, and also reading her quotes in the article saying she didn't want Gorsuch fired, and that ultimately he was the best on the list (once she saw the list)?

    I guess I think you're being very uncharitable here and grasping at straws. It's possible she blew the moment out of proportion or that other students saw it differently, but your criticisms of her FB post aren't proving that to me.

    ULTIMATELY though I think we're all in agreement he should be asked about the underlying women's issues so.

    So It Goes on
    GnizmoKnight_spool32SpoitArdolForarRiemannLivesLoisLaneStiltsN1tSt4lkerHakkekageYamiB.SleepKetBraLabelGnome-InterruptusMegaMekemp123Edith UpwardsjdarksunMan in the MistsCalica
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    And now an email chain is "evidence" and it's a "scandal".

    It's like trying to stand in the way of a moving truck when the cries of "problematic" start coming. Being wrong, or even Constitutionally illegitimate, isn't enough - he's not stupid, so he's got to be evil.

    Yes, actually. Diary entries, and email chains that help show the story as it happened are absolutely admissible evidence in criminal proceedings. I see no reason why this is somehow so different it would not be relevant. An email chain here is unbelievably relevant and strong evidence since there is no reason for it to exist if the allegations are false.

    They are only evidence of what one person believed happened, at best. An account already refuted. I won't go further without more information.

    A question I can't answer on mobile: date of the allegation compared to release date of Trump's list of potential picks?

    Refuted by whom, precisely? So far as I know, no other students have come forward one way or the other.

    It's in the original article - a classmate says it was a hypothetical and he wasn't taking the position she claims.

    Also she says on FB it was a hypo question that led to Gorsuch putting forward the idea as part of a class discussion, then later reverses herself, says she knows it wasn't hypothetical, and describes Gorsuch as "interrupting" the discussion to be a misogynist.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »

    The question: the comments are from April 2016. I don't think Trump has announced anything concrete then.

    List was released on May 18, so nothing there.

    Reading her facebook posts, I am more comfortable dismissing her. The original post is marked "tl;dr rant patriarchy", says that the situation in question was a hypothetical jumping-off point (which she denies later), rages about "rich white men" and their attitudes toward women and the value of public service but still uses a sexual insult for him ("toolbox"). She's advised to get corroboration but apparently did not, and her letter with the dean is only to set up a face-to-face about which we know nothing except that no action was taken.

    You've been dismissing her from the first post about this. Hopefully you can at least understand why other people may not dismiss her claims so easily.

    I know there's a sentiment that runs like
    1. GOP bad on women's issues.
    2. Gorsuch conservative.
    3. Gorsuch assumed bad until proven otherwise.

    There seems to be nothing concrete to aproach this angle with, but as I think we've mostly agreed on it's still a valid line of questioning independent of the rumor.

    Also remember that Bannon, Trump and others in the administration had at least some role in selecting him, and if he wasn't willing to go to bat to erode womens rights I can't imagine they would have picked him.

    Honestly I see a big part of the problem here being Trumps election and the way it happened.

    Trump is President right now because the majority of voters in this country agreed that their opinions didn't count because of an arbitrary and pointless rule which governs the nitty gritty details of how our elections work and who gets to be in power. Hillary won, but there are ridiculous sub rules in place and so Donald Trump gets to be president. We all have agreed that that has to happen. We aren't in the middle of a hot civil war right now.

    But conversely, all these people who have agreed to sit down and 'respect the rules, regardless of how stupid' are seeing the other side just ignore them and be rewarded for it. The President gets to nominate a justice if someone dies on his watch is a rule, a stupid rule, but no stupider than the electoral college. You can't have a functional democracy where one side ignores the rules which they don't like, and gains power by enforcing the ones they do. It's just going to fall to pieces.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Knight_Label
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    And now an email chain is "evidence" and it's a "scandal".

    It's like trying to stand in the way of a moving truck when the cries of "problematic" start coming. Being wrong, or even Constitutionally illegitimate, isn't enough - he's not stupid, so he's got to be evil.

    Yes, actually. Diary entries, and email chains that help show the story as it happened are absolutely admissible evidence in criminal proceedings. I see no reason why this is somehow so different it would not be relevant. An email chain here is unbelievably relevant and strong evidence since there is no reason for it to exist if the allegations are false.

    They are only evidence of what one person believed happened, at best. An account already refuted. I won't go further without more information.

    A question I can't answer on mobile: date of the allegation compared to release date of Trump's list of potential picks?

    Refuted by whom, precisely? So far as I know, no other students have come forward one way or the other.

    It's in the original article - a classmate says it was a hypothetical and he wasn't taking the position she claims.

    Also she says on FB it was a hypo question that led to Gorsuch putting forward the idea as part of a class discussion, then later reverses herself, says she knows it wasn't hypothetical, and describes Gorsuch as "interrupting" the discussion to be a misogynist.

    Ok, I will have to read the article then. The discussion so far led me to believe it didn't offer much more than what was covered by NPR this morning. I would go so far as to say the hypothetical is a bit inappropriate as well, but I think that is veering too far off course. Thank you for doing the research and providing the sources for me.

    Gnizmo on
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Why does the article even matter? Are you saying that the treatment of marginalized groups shouldn't be part of the battery of questions he's asked his views on? In addition to things like corporate personhood, access to abortion, the ability for the government to discriminate based on race and religion, etc?

    steam_sig.png
    YamiB.Edith Upwards
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »

    The question: the comments are from April 2016. I don't think Trump has announced anything concrete then.

    List was released on May 18, so nothing there.

    Reading her facebook posts, I am more comfortable dismissing her. The original post is marked "tl;dr rant patriarchy", says that the situation in question was a hypothetical jumping-off point (which she denies later), rages about "rich white men" and their attitudes toward women and the value of public service but still uses a sexual insult for him ("toolbox"). She's advised to get corroboration but apparently did not, and her letter with the dean is only to set up a face-to-face about which we know nothing except that no action was taken.

    You've been dismissing her from the first post about this. Hopefully you can at least understand why other people may not dismiss her claims so easily.

    I know there's a sentiment that runs like
    1. GOP bad on women's issues.
    2. Gorsuch conservative.
    3. Gorsuch assumed bad until proven otherwise.

    There seems to be nothing concrete to aproach this angle with, but as I think we've mostly agreed on it's still a valid line of questioning independent of the rumor.

    How about, someone using words in a Facebook post that you generally bristle at (patriarchy, toolbox, rich white men) doesn't mean they are lying? How about considering her motives (as you apparently thought of by asking when Trump's list came out) and seeing that she made the post before the list was announced, and also reading her quotes in the article saying she didn't want Gorsuch fired, and that ultimately he was the best on the list (once she saw the list)?

    I guess I think you're being very uncharitable here and grasping at straws. It's possible she blew the moment out of proportion or that other students saw it differently, but your criticisms of her FB post aren't proving that to me.

    ULTIMATELY though I think we're all in agreement he should be asked about the underlying women's issues so.

    We are generally on opposite sides of discussions involving the patriarchy or "privilege", it's true. It's possible she's dead on point and no one else was willing to call out a judge in public, but her FB posts tell a different story to me.

    Right or wrong on the rumor, asking the questions independently is still valid. Consensus!

    We should be Senators. :)

  • KrieghundKrieghund Registered User regular
    I fully expect this guy to get through. The Republicans will force it though one way or another. And when they do, I hope to hell that this guy is never, ever, referred to as Justice. Just keep calling him Mr. Gorsuch. Like, there are eight Supreme Court Justices, and Mr. Gorsuch. Or, "There SCOTUS ruled on such and such a case with a four to four split with Mr. Gorsuch siding with the Conservative wing."

  • Mr KhanMr Khan My power is stickiness UARegistered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    Hopefully zero. Stealing a SCOTUS seat by forcing a constitutional crisis is both craven and extremely dangerous.

    If the GOP had even held hearings on Garland, an aging moderate's moderate, I could be convinced otherwise. But as is? No chance.

    Depending how the future goes, stealing that seat and upsetting the status quo might end up destabilizing a country already closer to the tipping point than most people think.

    I will say that i'd support court-packing if Trump gets too many justices on there and they start blocking a future progressive agenda willy-nilly (that is, obvious partisan rulings and not cases where a progressive law was actually flawed), but i wouldn't doubt the legitimacy of the court per se.

    SpoitPhoenix-Dtbloxham
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Quite frankly, the whole hub-blub about Gorsuch is irrelevant.

    He's not Garland. So, the Republicans stole Obama's pick. Period. Nothing else matters.

    So, is either going all-in, or the Dems will never have a SCOTUS pick again if the GOP can do something about it.

    skyknytmrondeauSo It GoesLoisLaneBlankzillaDarkPrimusN1tSt4lkerCommander ZoomKnight_HakkekageMilltbloxhambrynhrtmnEncSurfpossumkimeShortyMatevLabelSquigieemp123Edith UpwardsHonkjdarksunMan in the MistsCalica
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Hearings kick off in a few minutes. NPR pregame is more about Garland than Gorsuch so far.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    To be fair being terrible on women's issues is kind of a core qualification of being considered a conservative judge

    mrondeauYamiB.LoisLaneshrykeToxShortyLovelyMatevMegaMekHonkRedTideMan in the MistsCalica
  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    Gorsuch refuses to say right to privacy is established precedent

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
  • NineNine Registered User regular
    Throwing up Republican gang signs. NY Times Editorial Board member:

    wanderingshrykeSleepenlightenedbumKetBraiTunesIsEvilMartini_PhilosopherMatevbrynhrtmnLabelemp123Edith UpwardsMan in the Mists
  • ChanusChanus Never Backward Always ForwardRegistered User regular
    edited March 21
    I really don't understand the whole getting bent out of shape because of using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic".

    Like, I don't even understand what the supposed, "teehee this'll show them stupid Democrats," aspect to it is.

    e: Like I've only ever heard Democrats even mention this being a thing Republicans do.

    Chanus on
    D&D [chat] names list for games
    XCOM Name File with [chat] First Names - All Countries, M&F | Or Shivahn's with gendered names
    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    **PUUUUUUNCH**
    Julius
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    edited March 21
    Chanus wrote: »
    I really don't understand the whole getting bent out of shape because of using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic".

    Like, I don't even understand what the supposed, "teehee this'll show them stupid Democrats," aspect to it is.

    e: Like I've only ever heard Democrats even mention this being a thing Republicans do.
    Use of the term has been a point of contention within the Republican Party. During the presidential campaign of 1984, when a delegate of the Republican platform committee asked unanimous consent to change the phrasing of a platform amendment to read "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party", New York Representative Jack Kemp objected, saying that would be "an insult to our Democratic friends" and the committee dropped the proposal.[3]

    Newt Gingrich waged a long campaign in the 1980s and 1990s to produce a Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives; he succeeded in 1994 in part by relying heavily on words and phrases calculated to cast Democrats in a negative light while showing Republicans favorably.[25] Among the poll-tested terms used to describe Republicans were "liberty", "pride" and "strength".[26] Those used to describe Democrats included "decay", "corrupt", and "self-serving".[26] Revival of the phrase "Democrat Party" as a way to portray the Democratic Party negatively was another staple of Gingrich's "Speak Like Newt" rhetoric; Gingrich shared these examples with other Republicans, and recommended their use.[27]

    In 1996, the wording throughout the Republican Party platform was changed from "Democratic Party" to "Democrat Party": Republican leaders "explained they wanted to make the subtle point that the Democratic Party had become elitist".[28] A proposal to use the term in the August 2008 Republican platform for similar reasons was voted down, with leaders choosing to use "Democratic Party". "We probably should use what the actual name is," said Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the panel's chairman. "At least in writing."[28]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
    It's one of those things where it matters only insofar that it's something done deliberately for no reason other than to be insulting.

    That a Supreme Court nominee should do so, especially given the last line in the spoiler above, is... disheartening.

    Surfpossum on
    is this how nations are born
    wanderingQuidN1tSt4lkerJoeUserAistaniTunesIsEvilMatevDarkPrimusLabelSquigieGnome-InterruptusVeagleemp123Edith UpwardsjdarksunMan in the MistsSpeed Racer
  • ChanusChanus Never Backward Always ForwardRegistered User regular
    ok i guess

    D&D [chat] names list for games
    XCOM Name File with [chat] First Names - All Countries, M&F | Or Shivahn's with gendered names
    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    **PUUUUUUNCH**
    QuidJulius
Sign In or Register to comment.