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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Democrats: either block this nomination or reveal yourselves as lily-livered, spineless, super-serviceable, rogues, knaves, and cowards.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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."
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.
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]
Posts
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Boy is my face red
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.
From falling asleep at your desk?
(I once fell asleep in math class and woke up with a calculator imprint on my face :rotate: )
I think we're in agreement on that!
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.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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.
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.
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?
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.
Screw you Bennet, grow some fucking spine.
Steam: pazython
Trump has already launched his 2020 campaign, so even by their own rules we can't appoint a justice right now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That a Supreme Court nominee should do so, especially given the last line in the spoiler above, is... disheartening.