This seems like a real possibility. Judge's history and social media presence make it certainly believable that he's got skeletons in his closet and wouldn't survive public scrutiny, which is why republicans don't want to bring him up
And yet the stories are so absurdly fanatistical and far-fetched now without any evidence or details that they can't possibly be true. Rich white women from influential families at a prestigious university getting serial gang raped in the 1980s and nobody noticing? It would be more believable if she claimed that the women blamed puerto ricans for the gang rapes and they got put on death row in a miscarriage of justice, not that it all magically flew completely under the radar yet the only two people involved with names were Judge and Kavanaugh.

I swear the next one to come forward is going to be a senior FBI agent represented by Attorney Jack Thompson, claiming that Kavanaugh & Judge kidnapped a baby and raped it before sacrificing it to Moloch in a satanic blood ritual, in or around 1978-1985

This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 26 2018 09:58am

Brett Kavanaugh Bill Cosbied women

Lock. Him. Up.

And just like in that Wiki article, if she's lying Kavanaugh can sue her. She's taking the chance knowing that can happen.

i already explained to you how i think you're incorrect about the independent investigation. if you disagree with me on that, fine, but don't lie and say im ignoring something. im not ignoring it, it's just not on the GOP to call or wait for a private investigation by the FBI for an allegation sans facts brought up after the hearings were over. that's not how the FBI works, it's not how hearings like this work, and on top of it all the FBI isn't the only body capable of doing an independent investigation for broad fact finding. In fact the defense of accusers are always tasked with hiring their own private investigators in these matters, that's how it always has worked.

if the democrats had hired investigators and there was credible evidence, i'd say halt the vote

if the democrats had enough specific information for the FBI to even get started, i'd entertain a halt to the vote

but here's the thing you don't seem to get, the democrats asked for an investigation by the FBI specifically, at this time post-hearings specifically, with the facts or lack thereof for a specific reason. they know it wont lead to an investigation, and that trump is the boss of the FBI, so they can make it look like obstruction. what they're really asking is for the senate to make 1 + 1 = 3, with a smile on their face.

again, if you disagree, coolio. but dont say i ignored anything, i worked in the court system for nearly a decade and have carefully looked at procedures and the specifics we have to form my opinion. what about you? did u read an article and see "independent investigation" and then form your opinion? that's my guess. otherwise show me a case of the FBI investigating a non-criminal matter, outside of the statute of limitations, with no where or when, in a case they already closed. if there's precedent i missed please show me, i can change my mind. can you?




as to the smearing of the victim by the right id need to see what you mean specifically. it's only been a few pages since i called out trump as an idiot for making a doubt-the-victim statement. so idk specifically what you mean.



If you mock the god of canaan one more time infidel we will begin a ritual ceremony to place a pox curse on your bloodline.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 26 2018 10:27am

the fact that you almost exclusively focus on criticising democrats, even for actions that you only expect / predict to happen in the future, speaks for itself.
taking a page out of the official GOP playbook and claiming there is no precedent justifying an investigation that matches EXACTLY all the conditions you list (after obviously compiling that list to do one thing: rule out a legal basis fora common sense measure), does not help to dispel the smell of blatant hackery, quite the opposite.

feigning an open mind by listing circumstances that SHOULD HAVE been met but haven't, or can't be met for you to support a course of action that is NOT exactly in line with GOP interest, is pretty transparent as well. to put it in your own words: it's 'coolio' if we disagree, i'm just telling you that 150+ pages of partisanship and bias regarding the issue don't magically disappear by just typing 'i can change my mind'...

well color me confused then. i didn't create a list of things that can't be met, like the democrats did, i stated a list of conditions that are required for an investigation to be carried out. be it local police or the FBI. this list existed long before this situation failed to meet the conditions. it's standard procedure in line with the due process requirements of our legal system, which again, i am familiar with on a professional level and you are not. if you are knowledgeable, even not first hand, about how this investigation DOES fall into the due process requirements because you've read somewhere about that please show me the source, i'd be interested in it.

as it stands you have no sources to back your opinion. and are falsely accusing me of things to fit your bland narrative, that im biased towards the GOP, for god knows what reason. odd considering i'm calling for a private investigation, just not be the FBI. i even stated concerns that, as they're instructed by Trump (their boss), that the FBI might not be the most independent organization, even if an investigation was called for. perhaps the local jurisdiction where this accusation stems from, or state police investigators. again, the dems called for the FBI for a specific reason, it's a feint. I agree that an investigation is a common sense thing to have done, but to state that it has to be the FBI for unknown and unprecedented "reasons" you'll have to do better.

perhaps you're simply confused because you're a foreigner who doesn't understand our legal system, and are tripped up on the idea that since the FBI does investigations into judges for approval, that they must be the only body that should do THIS investigation. that's not how jurisdictions work, that's not how criminal accusations work, and that's not how due process works. the FBI isn't a lapdog waiting to do your bidding, even on cases they already investigated. by your logic i should be able to say "i swear there was a guy in a trenchcoat 20 feet from the grassy knoll" and the FBI would be required to re-open the JFK file based on a sans fact accusation. it doesnt work like that. i'd have to hire a private investigator or do the fact finding myself, so i have credible facts to necessitate an investigation. which in this case, even with proper facts, the FBI still might not be the best body to follow the facts through.

you last 150+ page knock is pure fantasy. i've been critical of both sides in the hearing phase, and will admit openly that the GOP wants to push this through asap. its possible for both sides to do bad things, but its logical for the GOP to rush proceedings. they've done it for every appointee thusfar that they can. it's not logical for the democrats to push an accusation or 4 into being after the hearing with no privately confirmed facts to lay out. that's odd, and noteworthy, and against due process.

im not disappointed to see you have to weave a narrative to malign me as biased. its funny to me that in 10 different threads i can be arguing against 5 lefties and 5 righties just for all 10 to consistently call me biased. usually with no facts. i noticed, for instance, you never even asked me if i want kavanaugh confirmed. i don't. i agree with the lefties that 1 scotus pick per term should be max. the difference is i didnt create this opinion for biased reasons, ive always held it, since i took 12+ credits on the USSC and our justice system.

I find this interesting. How would you decide a SC vacancy if two or more were to occur under a president's 4 year term or his second term?

well first off i'd say that a 2 term president should be allowed to have 2 picks. 2 campaigns, 2 wins, 2 picks. especially because, as old Grover showed us, the terms might not be consecutive. when making rules u have to factor in even the exception when amendments are on the line.

some things i'd need hard and fast numbers on to make a "good" framework for the rules would be:

-how many presidents have appointed more than 1
-how many presidents did this as a result of picks pushed from the last
-how many cases sent down from the USSC due to a split never made it back up

perhaps allowances for cases to return easier if they were decided under a court with a vacancy, perhaps some complicated but checked and balanced tie breaker system involving congress and/or the executive branch, or even a system of lower courts.

overall though, i think the meta as it is, that being both sides trying to push picks as long as possible, is in part due to the lack of a rule like im calling for. in the case of garland, gorsuch, kavanaugh, tho....i'd guess the GOP would still fight tooth and nail to not get garland. as it wasnt a lock that Trump would get a pick.

i just dont like swings in the most influential court in the entire world, seems icky. we're seeing a body that's designed to be apolitical (never has been in reality, but alas) become increasingly politicized. i dont like it.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 26 2018 11:29am

I like the idea of de-politicizing the SC. Dems really fucked that up decades ago. I like the concept of 1 pick per term, I just don't know how you'd choose a new justice on the off chance you'd get 2 appointees/ term.

Senate vote would just come down to 51 majority. House factored in? Who knows.

Something worth investigating for sure.

i think it would be rare to have 3 vacancies, maybe never even happened. so the thing to me is what to do with a vacant single seat court and how to break ties while still holding court in a semi-regular fashion. to that i dont have a convincing answer at all.