Come on, who among us hasn't grabbed a girl by here kitty? Didn't you watch Crocodile Dundee? Sometimes you just have to know.
I think ending up with Hillary Clinton at the TOP of the ticket is no less long shot than Trump looked like 4 years ago. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Not surprisingly, your math isn't very solid. Prior to Gorsuch's appointment, the Court had two ideological wings and some moderate/pragmatic members who could go either way depending on the specifics. Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan - solidly in favor of abortion rights. They would affirm Roe in full and likely vote to overturn Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which kept Roe but gave some wiggle room for states to enact some restrictions on abortion that they couldn't previously enact. They meet the Democratic Party's litmus test on the issue. Thomas, Scalia, Alito - solidly in favor of state's rights to restrict or ban abortion and willing to overturn Roe in full. Kennedy - unwilling to overturn Roe but willing to nibble at the edges and uphold some restrictions. He joined the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Roberts - He's willing to uphold some abortion restrictions, but whether he'd vote to strike down Roe is unknown. I know this is advanced math for Oklahoma, but the Court has 9 justices. That means you need five to form a majority. If you're counting, you'll see three justices in favor of overturning Roe, one who is unknown, and five who were unwilling to overturning Roe. Gorsuch replaced Scalia. That only secured the third solid vote. Kavanaugh would be the decisive fifth vote if Roberts decides to go along. It's also worth noting that we don't know what Kavanaugh would do. His prior judicial record doesn't establish anything.
Is that really a changed story? I would allow for 'additional detail.' Using your formula, a woman first says she "was raped" should not be believed if she later admits it was "up the rear." You are creating an impossible standard, even a ridiculous one.
This is just sick. Her arrogance is the biggest in all the land. World-class hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi says she doesn't need a 'lecture' on the #MeToo movement and stands by Joe Biden amid sexual assault claim
I thought we were referring to general conservative issues, not abortion only. Roberts is a conservative in my world view. Maybe that makes my math poor.
Impossible standard for a 27 year old sexual assault allegation with no physical evidence? only one first hand witness telling varied stories over the years corroborated by witnesses who stories have changed over time? ... that's really not huisache's fault. With Biden ... with Kavanaugh ... we'll just never know exactly what happened. Certainly not enough credible evidence for me to suggest either's career should be derailed.
The good news? One is a candidate in an election that people are allowed to vote against for a 4 year term. The other is a lifetime appointment.
The original comment you responded to dealt directly with abortion. But your math is wrong either way. Gorsuch replaced Scalia. That did not alter the ideological balance of the Court, whether we consider Roberts a conservative or not or whether we're talking about general conservative issues. The appointment of Kavanaugh might have changed the balance. We really don't know yet. What's important to realize is that there is more than ideology at play. There is also willingness to overturn bad precedent. Courts are supposed to be deferential to prior decisions, even if the justices might disagree with it (so-called "stare decisis"). However, some judges are more committed to it than others. If Kennedy and Roberts (and perhaps even Souter) had been on the Court in 1973, I don't think they would have voted to strike down abortion bans. However, they respect than stare decisis more than Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito do. Liberal justices mostly aren't in that conundrum. In the 1930s, they took the entire Lochner doctrine (which was the right thing to do - just for the wrong reasons) and wiped their *** with it, and they've been more than willing to piss on precedent ever since if it conflicted with their agenda. And it makes sense. If you don't believe that actual written law binds you, they why would a court decision interpreting that written law bind you?
I will certainly defer to you on legal and supreme court information. Since I'm the retarded adult at the kiddie table. I'll take that as a solid two handed backhanded compliment. Personally, I think I'm more than advanced child at the adult table. So, agree to disagree.
Reade already has more corroboration than Ford ever did (who had none). Yet Ford received an unprecedented amount of media coverage, while Reade is being ignored. Is there a way to explain this difference other than bias and self-interest?
Reade was the top non COVID story on the ABC nightly news... but I guess she's being "ignored" because the mainstream media doesn't talk about it as much as FOX and Limbauagh do
The standard of comparison is the amount of media coverage the media gave to Kavanaugh/Ford, not what the top non COVID story is. That is pretty sly though. "Top non COVID", does that mean the #50 story? Blaisey Ford was #1 for weeks on all mainstream media.
Let's put it this way. In Texas, you're the retarded adult at the kiddie table. However, in Mobilhoma, you're sitting at the head of the adult table and wearing a crown. I think that's a relative compliment.
Two points on this, Crock. First, do you think that Christine Ford would have taken a back seat to Coronavirus had it been an issue at the time? I doubt it. Second, how did ABC frame the allegations? Did they view all skepticism as anti-woman and tolerance for sexual assault? I'll bet they didn't.
[QUOTE="OUBubba, post: 1729889, member: 11101" Say, like, I don't know, grabbing women by their *****?[/QUOTE] Awww. Sounds like somebody's jealous....
Hard to take you seriously when you resort to stupid names. Actually, hard to take you seriously even when you don't do that.
ABC did a solid news reporting job, the claims, the denials. There wasn't a lot of histronics ... which they don't really have a lot of time for in a "30 minute" newscast that has about 12 minutes of pharma and investment commercials. That necessarily confines actual news delivery to a few hundred words a night. TV is a terrible way to get news anyway, but it doesn't take much effort and I'm home at 5:30. They don't have much time to frame things in a good vs. evil format like MSNBC, FOX and CNN do.
I would be curious to compare it with how they covered Ford's allegations in terms of thoroughness, rhetoric, and tone.
With the Kavanaugh story ... it was breaking news. I don't know how long I've known about Reade's accusations, but what is being reported isn't "news" to me because I read a lot. Timeliness is a big part of new judgement and the confirmation hearings were a big hook.
Do you honestly buy that excuse? Trump's sexual escapades were years and even decades old in 2016 and well-known. Did that make the media hesitant to run with them? Obviously not. And like I've said before, I'm suspicious of election year accusations. I don't assume Biden's guilt, but it pretty hard to cover the Reade story so tepidly (if at all) after virtually the entire media crapped in their pants over the Ford story, which had far more reason to doubt.
@OUBubba -- @Mr. Deez is right on this. If anything, replacing Scalia with Kavanaugh probably moved the court a tiny bit to the left. Gorsuch is not as consistently dogmatic as Scalia was. I'd use a stronger term than "might" on this one. While the jury is still out on how far to the right Kavanaugh will move the Court, it seems pretty clear that he will be significantly to the right of Kennedy.
I hope the media has learned from the Forde story. There isn't going to be any justice for sexual assault allegations decades old because memories are unreliable even for generally honest people. Plus, it's harder than blazes to tell who is honest. Skilled liars often sound a lot more innocent than conscientious truth tellers. If you have a chance to read Malcolm Gladwell's "Talking to Strangers" like a lot of folks have, it provides interesting perspective on how hard it is to find the truth.
Is it that clear? Is there an issue on which he has voted to the right of where Kennedy would likely have voted had he remained on the Court? Keep in mind that Kennedy voted with the Right far more often than not. The reason they didn't like him is that he was hostile to them or at least unreliable on two issues they cared about most - gays and abortion. Will Kavanaugh really be more conservative on those two issues? I don't see how anyone can know that yet.
The lifetime guy is only 1 out of 9 voices in a branch whose only job is to interpret the Constitution. The president is his own branch of government. Who do you think has a greater impact on our country?
Apples to oranges. They knew Al Franken would be replaced by a Democrat, so there wasn't a political cost of throwing him under the bus. Ditto for John Conyers. That's not the case with Biden, and that's why they are circling the wagons for him.
They didn't learn anything, because they knew what they were doing, and it was never about finding the truth. They didn't care if Ford was telling the truth, and they don't care if Reade is telling the truth. It is hard to find the truth. It's even harder when people are being foolish and when those whose job it is to find truth don't care to.
Liberals clamored for an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh over a weak (was it a dream?), uncorroborated allegation from the early 1980s Now we have a more recent allegation that has at least some level of corroboration In order to be consistent, you should now call for an FBI investigation of Biden Are you willing to do that?
