SCOTUS hearing

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I consider myself very fortunate to have a job whereby I can listen on the radio to the all out mayhem that is the Kavanaugh nomination hearing today.  It's dry and definitely for political nerds, but the mayhem, protesting and civil disobedience is pretty compelling.

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I consider myself very fortunate to have a job whereby I can listen on the radio to the all out mayhem that is the Kavanaugh nomination hearing today.  It's dry and definitely for political nerds, but the mayhem, protesting and civil disobedience is pretty compelling.

Dick Durbin was wrong when he said "this is democracy in action". The Senators that are interviewing Kavanaugh are doing the jobs they were hired (elected) to do. Disrupting the process is stuff you would expect to see in some Banana Republic. The "democracy in action" is the legislative's check on the executive and judicial.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I consider myself very fortunate to have a job whereby I can listen on the radio to the all out mayhem that is the Kavanaugh nomination hearing today.  It's dry and definitely for political nerds, but the mayhem, protesting and civil disobedience is pretty compelling.

Dick Durbin was wrong when he said "this is democracy in action". The Senators that are interviewing Kavanaugh are doing the jobs they were hired (elected) to do. Disrupting the process is stuff you would expect to see in some Banana Republic. The "democracy in action" is the legislative's check on the executive and judicial.

I'm torn.  The interruptions are ridiculous and silly and do absolutely zero good for any cause, as far as I'm concerned.  Nobody can hear what most of these folks are saying, and even if they do, aren't they assuming that these people are pretty nuts?  Listening on the radio, I found myself laughing at the removal of one protester that sounded like it included quite a bit of thrashing, kicking and overall craziness.  I'm only torn because I figure it's their right to protest and subject themselves to arrest.  It's hard to imagine what positive they think is coming from it all...

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I consider myself very fortunate to have a job whereby I can listen on the radio to the all out mayhem that is the Kavanaugh nomination hearing today.  It's dry and definitely for political nerds, but the mayhem, protesting and civil disobedience is pretty compelling.

Dick Durbin was wrong when he said "this is democracy in action". The Senators that are interviewing Kavanaugh are doing the jobs they were hired (elected) to do. Disrupting the process is stuff you would expect to see in some Banana Republic. The "democracy in action" is the legislative's check on the executive and judicial.

I'm torn.  The interruptions are ridiculous and silly and do absolutely zero good for any cause, as far as I'm concerned.  Nobody can hear what most of these folks are saying, and even if they do, aren't they assuming that these people are pretty nuts?  Listening on the radio, I found myself laughing at the removal of one protester that sounded like it included quite a bit of thrashing, kicking and overall craziness.  I'm only torn because I figure it's their right to protest and subject themselves to arrest.  It's hard to imagine what positive they think is coming from it all...

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I consider myself very fortunate to have a job whereby I can listen on the radio to the all out mayhem that is the Kavanaugh nomination hearing today.  It's dry and definitely for political nerds, but the mayhem, protesting and civil disobedience is pretty compelling.

Dick Durbin was wrong when he said "this is democracy in action". The Senators that are interviewing Kavanaugh are doing the jobs they were hired (elected) to do. Disrupting the process is stuff you would expect to see in some Banana Republic. The "democracy in action" is the legislative's check on the executive and judicial.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:Beginning to sound increasingly like FBI or DOJ covered up corroborating stories of sex assault by Kavanaugh at the direction of the president.  Nothing to see here.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:And this is where I point at a story like this and remind folks that felt that the hyperbolic concerns about Trump being a dictator or autocrat were silly, and that our constitution would hold, and I remind them that this is where your constitution and democracy begin breaking down.  No, Trump isn't yet a dictator or an autocrat (although he would probably like to be), but these are the things that turn a nation in that direction.  It was obvious that while Kavanaugh may not have raped or seriously assaulted anyone, he warranted closer scrutiny and some additional investigating just to make sure.  When I began hearing that some of the corroborators of the allegations were being turned away, I knew something sounded fishy.  Much of his college partying sounds pretty stupid and typical of the drunken frat guy world, and I hesitate to call this idiot a "rapist," but he is really beginning to appear beneath the dignity of a member of SCOTUS, moreso than he appeared during his yelling, crying hearing.

alohafri wrote:There has only been one Supreme Court justice impeached and it was because of what he did on the Bench, not with the "broads and beer" (to practice alliteration). Impeachment is a losing battle here folks. Move along.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:There has only been one Supreme Court justice impeached and it was because of what he did on the Bench, not with the "broads and beer" (to practice alliteration). Impeachment is a losing battle here folks. Move along.

I would say it'd potentially become a worthwhile battle if the evidence became a bit more overwhelming, whereby he might resign rather than endure the national embarrassment of a lot of public accusations without a chance to publicly refute them.  I don't think we're there yet, or even close to there.  If we get to a point where there's strong evidence and a lot of witnesses that'll speak on behalf of the accusations, then I say put them on the stand and let them embarrass the holy hell out of him.

Also worth noting would be that if he were to be impeached, I don't think it'd be for things he did in college.  It'd be for perjuring himself to congress during the confirmation hearing.  I don't say that to dismiss what he did in college, but to suggest I think the public and congress is willing to be SOMEWHAT forgiving of stupid behavior in college.  I mean....seriously, who of us didn't put our dicks in drunk womens' faces or hands, or hold down a girl and try pulling her pants off (assuming he did these things)?

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:There has only been one Supreme Court justice impeached and it was because of what he did on the Bench, not with the "broads and beer" (to practice alliteration). Impeachment is a losing battle here folks. Move along.

I would say it'd potentially become a worthwhile battle if the evidence became a bit more overwhelming, whereby he might resign rather than endure the national embarrassment of a lot of public accusations without a chance to publicly refute them.  I don't think we're there yet, or even close to there.  If we get to a point where there's strong evidence and a lot of witnesses that'll speak on behalf of the accusations, then I say put them on the stand and let them embarrass the holy hell out of him.

Also worth noting would be that if he were to be impeached, I don't think it'd be for things he did in college.  It'd be for perjuring himself to congress during the confirmation hearing.  I don't say that to dismiss what he did in college, but to suggest I think the public and congress is willing to be SOMEWHAT forgiving of stupid behavior in college.  I mean....seriously, who of us didn't put our dicks in drunk womens' faces or hands, or hold down a girl and try pulling her pants off (assuming he did these things)?

Not I!!!!

For the most part, I agree with everything you've written here.  I think what you describe was rather commonplace in our day.  I think what really touched women when Christine Blasey Ford testified was her describing the fear when he put his hand over her mouth.  That's what kicked it up a notch in my book.  When you put your hand over someone's mouth and turn up the music so she couldn't be heard, that makes me think that this was/would have been something more than drunken grab ass if she hadn't been able to get away.  But she DID get away, so even if you take everything she said as 100% truthful, it ultimately was drunken grab ass.  If she had immediately called the police, I don't think he would have been arrested.  But based on everything we know, he lied under oath.  Any one of us who's ever been hammered knows that when he said he's never been so drunk that he's blacked out that he's full of shit.  I think he lied about a heck of a lot more than that, but he certainly lied about that.  You can't be on the highest court in the land after you've perjured yourself.  Now I get it.  That's a question that he knew he had to lie about because if he admitted the truth, Klobuchar would have followed up her question by asking how he could be so certain that he hadn't assaulted women if he'd blacked out.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:There has only been one Supreme Court justice impeached and it was because of what he did on the Bench, not with the "broads and beer" (to practice alliteration). Impeachment is a losing battle here folks. Move along.

I would say it'd potentially become a worthwhile battle if the evidence became a bit more overwhelming, whereby he might resign rather than endure the national embarrassment of a lot of public accusations without a chance to publicly refute them.  I don't think we're there yet, or even close to there.  If we get to a point where there's strong evidence and a lot of witnesses that'll speak on behalf of the accusations, then I say put them on the stand and let them embarrass the holy hell out of him.

Also worth noting would be that if he were to be impeached, I don't think it'd be for things he did in college.  It'd be for perjuring himself to congress during the confirmation hearing.  I don't say that to dismiss what he did in college, but to suggest I think the public and congress is willing to be SOMEWHAT forgiving of stupid behavior in college.  I mean....seriously, who of us didn't put our dicks in drunk womens' faces or hands, or hold down a girl and try pulling her pants off (assuming he did these things)?

Not I!!!!

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:There has only been one Supreme Court justice impeached and it was because of what he did on the Bench, not with the "broads and beer" (to practice alliteration). Impeachment is a losing battle here folks. Move along.

I would say it'd potentially become a worthwhile battle if the evidence became a bit more overwhelming, whereby he might resign rather than endure the national embarrassment of a lot of public accusations without a chance to publicly refute them.  I don't think we're there yet, or even close to there.  If we get to a point where there's strong evidence and a lot of witnesses that'll speak on behalf of the accusations, then I say put them on the stand and let them embarrass the holy hell out of him.

Also worth noting would be that if he were to be impeached, I don't think it'd be for things he did in college.  It'd be for perjuring himself to congress during the confirmation hearing.  I don't say that to dismiss what he did in college, but to suggest I think the public and congress is willing to be SOMEWHAT forgiving of stupid behavior in college.  I mean....seriously, who of us didn't put our dicks in drunk womens' faces or hands, or hold down a girl and try pulling her pants off (assuming he did these things)?

Not I!!!!

For the most part, I agree with everything you've written here.  I think what you describe was rather commonplace in our day.  I think what really touched women when Christine Blasey Ford testified was her describing the fear when he put his hand over her mouth.  That's what kicked it up a notch in my book.  When you put your hand over someone's mouth and turn up the music so she couldn't be heard, that makes me think that this was/would have been something more than drunken grab ass if she hadn't been able to get away.  But she DID get away, so even if you take everything she said as 100% truthful, it ultimately was drunken grab ass.  If she had immediately called the police, I don't think he would have been arrested.  But based on everything we know, he lied under oath.  Any one of us who's ever been hammered knows that when he said he's never been so drunk that he's blacked out that he's full of shit.  I think he lied about a heck of a lot more than that, but he certainly lied about that.  You can't be on the highest court in the land after you've perjured yourself.  Now I get it.  That's a question that he knew he had to lie about because if he admitted the truth, Klobuchar would have followed up her question by asking how he could be so certain that he hadn't assaulted women if he'd blacked out.

Yep.  Kind of a Catch 22 for him.  I'm not overly offended by drunken grab ass in an era where that was generally accepted to some degree.  Kind of like how everyone appears to have posed in blackface for photos in their past.  Do you have a blackface photo, Pam?  Anyway, it's not the action that's so objectionable unless it was worse than described....it's the perjury, which half of the country thinks he probably committed.

sharpy wrote:Blondy and Rob you are under the impression that women get a fair shake in this world. What would ever make you think of that?  equal pay?  equal respect?  equal opportunity?   Come on, John Lennon told ya 50 yrs ago, and its not all together changed yet, …"Women are the niggers of the world"
Kavanaugh  could have raped the freshman class at Yale in alphabetical order and he'd still be on the bench. 

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

sharpy wrote:Blondy and Rob you are under the impression that women get a fair shake in this world. What would ever make you think of that?  equal pay?  equal respect?  equal opportunity?   Come on, John Lennon told ya 50 yrs ago, and its not all together changed yet, …"Women are the niggers of the world"
Kavanaugh  could have raped the freshman class at Yale in alphabetical order and he'd still be on the bench. 

I sure as hell didn't mean to imply that I think women get a fair shake.  Some here and there do, if they're both super hot and smart.  Otherwise, they get pushed around.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

sharpy wrote:Blondy and Rob you are under the impression that women get a fair shake in this world. What would ever make you think of that?  equal pay?  equal respect?  equal opportunity?   Come on, John Lennon told ya 50 yrs ago, and its not all together changed yet, …"Women are the niggers of the world"
Kavanaugh  could have raped the freshman class at Yale in alphabetical order and he'd still be on the bench. 

I sure as hell didn't mean to imply that I think women get a fair shake.  Some here and there do, if they're both super hot and smart.  Otherwise, they get pushed around.

Are you referring to real life or the famous?  My mind went right to Barbara Walters and Oprah, neither of whom are particularly hot, but they've each reached the top in their field.  To your point, I guess, is that there were many many men who came before them, but can't think of another man in the field who even comes close to the success achieved by Oprah...a black woman no less.  Certain fields are dominated by women, but probably no coincidence that they are some of the most underpaid like teachers and nurses.  My profession is largely women, and I'm not sure exactly why, but an awful lot of men kiss my ass since the industries we do business with are primarily run by men.  The only exceptions in terms of the vendors currently doing business with my building are their attorney and their landscape rep.