Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Future of the U.S Supreme Court

2016 Election U.S. Supreme Court Labor Unions Corporate Personhood Voting Rights Act

  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#101
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,179 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
I think this is just evidence that the supreme court holds too much power, and its term limits are unbelievably long.

Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/DGe_Sluth3A


#102
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
/\ This

#103
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

Do we really want a man consumed with rage, self-pity and hate on the Supreme Court?

 

http://www.latimes.c...0927-story.html

 

Introduction:

 

(Los Angeles Times) I wasn't in that Maryland bedroom in 1982. You weren't there.

 

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh says he wasn't there. But after listening to every word uttered by his tearful, yet calm and respectful accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, and Kavanaugh's combative, weepy refutation, I have no choice but to conclude she is credible and he is not.

 

He is not suited to a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Because of his self-pity and rage.

 

Because of the way he shredded the idea that he can be an impartial arbiter on the high court when he accused Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee of seeking "revenge on the behalf of the Clintons" and "left-wing opposition groups."


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#104
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

The White House Has Placed All Sorts of Limits on the FBI in New Kavanaugh Probe

 

https://www.motherjo...avanaugh-probe/

 

Introduction:

 

(Mother Jones) On Friday morning, two women confronted Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in a Senate elevator and told him about their sexual assaults. Hours later, in a dramatic eleventh-hour move, Flake held up the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote to advance Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the Senate floor. 

 

After a series of hushed discussions in a side room with his Republican and Democratic colleagues, Flake emerged and said that while he would approve advancing Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate, he would stop short of a final vote in his favor without an FBI investigation of the sexual assault allegations against the nominee, which Flake stipulated should take no longer than a week. 

 

The move rankled many Republicans and emboldened several others—including swing vote Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)—to stand with Flake. Trump on Saturday tweeted he would allow the FBI to move ahead with the investigation independently and interview whomever they “deem appropriate.”

 

But new reports from NBC News and the New York Times over the weekend revealed that the White House counsel’s office limited the number of allowed witnesses for the FBI’s investigation. Two unnamed sources, including a senior administration official, told the Times the list thus far appears to have only four names: Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh’s high school friend who Dr. Christine Blasey Ford alleges was in the room when Kavanaugh assaulted her at a high school party; Leland Keyser and PJ Smyth, two more high school friends Ford says were at the party; and Deborah Ramirez, who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly exposing himself to her at a party at Yale.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#105
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

Did Brett Kavanaugh give false testimony under oath?

 

https://www.washingt...m=.1810345f4ada

 

Introduction:

 

(Washington Post) Democrats say Brett M. Kavanaugh gave false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004 and 2006 while answering questions about some of the biggest political firestorms of the George W. Bush presidency.

 

Kavanaugh worked for Bush as an associate White House counsel from 2001 to 2003 and as Bush’s staff secretary from 2003 to 2006. Since then, he has been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and now he’s President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court.

 

Democratic senators allege that Kavanaugh gave untruthful testimony at his prior confirmation hearings for the appeals court, which were held in 2004 and 2006, and that those untruths disqualify him as a Supreme Court nominee.

 

They say Kavanaugh misled senators into believing he had no role in the selection and vetting process for three of Bush’s most controversial candidates for the federal courts: Jim Haynes, Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor. Democrats also say Kavanaugh misled the Judiciary Committee in 2006 about his knowledge of a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program run by the NSA to monitor terrorists.

 

The overarching accusation is that Kavanaugh whitewashed his record, distancing himself from thorny political events instead of owning up to his role. A cache of emails and documents that have been released over the last few weeks proves Kavanaugh did not tell the truth, Democrats say. At his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court this month, Kavanaugh rejected these allegations, and the White House has denied them.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#106
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

 

 

Do we really want a man consumed with rage, self-pity and hate on the Supreme Court?

 

 

Here is another article that pretty much makes the same point:

 

https://nonprofitqua...oment-what-now/


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#107
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

The Loophole That Let Kavanaugh Hide His Finances Could Lead to Conflicts of Interest

 

https://www.motherjo...ts-of-interest/

 

Introduction:

 

(Mother Jones) Over the past several months, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has told us a lot about himself: that he was a virgin in high school, that he has bought tickets to every home playoff game of the Washington Nationals baseball team, and even that he had his first date with his wife on September 10, 2001, the night before the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. What he still hasn’t told us is how he pays his bills.

 

In the wake of the far more serious sexual assault allegations against him, his personal finance deficiencies might seem less important today than they did a month ago. But the way Kavanaugh has handled questions about these financial issues reflect a pattern that’s also evident in his responses to allegations he was a heavy drinker in his youth and sexually assaulted young women. He’s both defensive and evasive, even when it’s possible that admitting the truth would help him. And he’s been helped by a little-known loophole in federal disclosure rules that has the potential to create a host of conflicts of interest.

 

When President Donald Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court in July, Kavanaugh arrived with one of the most unusual financial profiles of any recent Supreme Court nominee. At the end of 2016, he had mountains of debt that vanished ahead of his nomination. Not long before he landed on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, he bought a starter home for $1.225 million despite having few liquid assets. And even though he had heavy credit card and other debt and not much cash in the bank, in 2016, Kavanaugh somehow came up with the $92,000 initiation fee to join the Chevy Chase Club, an exclusive private country club in Maryland that also charges $9,000 in annual dues.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#108
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,027 posts
  • LocationLondon

It is bizarre that someone can be appointed to a lifelong position on the supreme court without a complete financial audit, but I guess the goal is not really to stop corruption?



#109
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

Republicans stopping corruption?

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for that.  Except maybe Flake, Murkowski and Collins...

 

Key Senators Criticize Trump for Mocking Kavanaugh Accuser

 

https://ijr.com/1018...kavanaugh-ford/

 

Introduction:

 

 

(IJR) Two moderate Republicans who could be pivotal in determining whether the Senate confirms U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh criticized President Donald Trump on Wednesday for mocking a woman who has accused the judge of sexual assault.

 

Senators Jeff Flake and Susan Collins were among the lawmakers who took issue with comments Trump made regarding Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor from California who detailed her sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh at an extraordinary Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week.

 

At a political rally in Mississippi on Tuesday night, Trump mocked Ford’s testimony about the alleged assault in Maryland in 1982 when she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17.

 

Ford testified that she could not remember the precise date or location of the alleged assault, but offered a detailed account of the incident itself in which she said a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her down, tried to remove her clothing and covered her mouth when she screamed.

 

“What neighborhood was it in? I don’t know. Where’s the house? I don’t know. Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don’t know. But I had one beer. That’s the only thing I remember,” Trump said in his imitation of Ford’s testimony.

 

https://www.opslens....ne-blasey-ford/

 

 

(OpLens) Already, the comments have created a backlash and it’s not just Democrats who are upset. Jeff Flake, the outgoing Republican Senator from Arizona, had already held up the confirmation vote, demanding an FBI investigation first. Now, Flake is pressing back against Trump’s remarks, stating: “There’s no time and no place for remarks like that. To discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right. It’s just not right. I wish he hadn’t had done it.”

 

 

Even for President Trump, the comments mark a harsh reversal. Just days ago, Trump was praising Ford as a “good witness” while also stating “I respect her position very much.” With Kavanaugh’s confirmation facing increasing headwinds, however, the president has begun to lash out.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#110
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

Largest coalition of Christian churches in US demands Kavanaugh nomination be withdrawn

 

https://gritpost.com...ches-kavanaugh/

 

 

 

(Gritpost) While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) pushes hard to hold a final confirmation vote on Kavanaugh quickly and quietly, more organizations are ditching the sinking ship that seems to be the Supreme Court nomination. Latest; the National Council of Churches.

 

The Council’s website exceeded its resource limit and crashed after announcing they would advocate for the withdrawal of Kavanaugh’s nomination Wednesday.

 

…The National Council of Churches represents 40 million Christians in more than 100,000 local congregations, according to their Facebook page. Its membership is composed of over 40 denominations including most major Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations.

 

https://m.dailykos.c...on-be-withdrawn

 

 

(NCC as quoted by Daily Kos) The National Council of Churches (NCC) calls for the withdrawal of the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States.  We believe he has disqualified himself from this lifetime appointment and must step aside immediately.

 

We note several reasons for this.  During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation.

 

In addition, his testimony before the Judiciary Committee included several misstatements and some outright falsehoods, some in relation to accusations of sexual misconduct. All citizens must be expected to speak truthfully when under oath, however, this is especially true for anyone who seeks a seat on the Supreme Court.

 

Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive judicial and political record is troubling with regard to issues of voting rights, racial and gender justice, health care, the rights of people with disabilities, and environmental protections.  This leads us to believe that he cannot be an impartial justice in cases that are sure to come before him at the Court.

 

Therefore the National Council of Churches calls for the withdrawal of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court immediately.


  • Alislaws likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#111
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

The Real Reason the White House Told the FBI Not to Interview Christine Blasey Ford?

 

https://www.motherjo...ne-blasey-ford/

 

Introduction:

 

(Mother Jones) On Wednesday night, the lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford responded sharply to the news that the Trump White House had blocked the FBI from interviewing her about her allegation that she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 1982. This probe, her attorneys said, “cannot be called an investigation. We are profoundly disappointed that after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward, those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth.” The decision to not interview Ford, Kavanaugh, and dozens of other witnesses related to her allegation and Deborah Ramirez’s claim that Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct during his college days has drawn much criticism from Democrats and others, as Republicans cite the FBI’s report—which has been presented to the White House and Senate—to contend there is no evidence Kavanaugh committed any wrongdoing in these cases.  

 

“When you’re in front of the FBI, you cannot refuse to answer questions, you cannot attack the agents, you cannot change the subject,” a Democratic member of the committee says. “The White House did not want Kavanaugh in such a situation. And if he said anything to the FBI that could prove false, he could end up in a lot of trouble.”

 

The absence of Ford and Kavanaugh interviews in the investigation offers Ford allies and other critics an obvious and justifiable talking point to challenge the legitimacy of the days-long probe


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#112
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

West Virginia Survivors Say NO To Kavanaugh

 

https://ourfuture.or...no-to-kavanaugh

 

Introduction:

 

(Our Future) It was 5:00 a.m. when West Virginia Citizen Action members and coalition activists boarded a bus to cross the Allegheny Mountains as we headed towards Washington, D.C. We had one goal in mind: keep Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. Along the way, we stopped in Morgantown to pick up fellow travelers. By the time we reached D.C., we were thousands strong, streaming in from all over the country, ready to march.

 

We’re part of Our Time Is Now! – a new coalition of West Virginianonprofits and faith groups, including the Our Children Our Future Campaign, ACLU, NAACP, West Virginia Free, Rise Up WV, and others who feel as strongly as we do that Kavanaugh is wrong for the job, and wrong for the nation.

 

We’re also part of the millions who feel that not only is Kavanaugh wrong – the rush to confirm him is wrong. It undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court and the democratic process.

 

So we’re speaking our consciences now, putting our voices and bodies on the line, and we’ll vote our conscience in November. We want to make sure our Senators hear us loud and clear.

 

“Our time is now, West Virginia – let’s do this!” said Margaret Chapman Pomponio of West Virginia Free. “Let’s call on Manchin and Capito and let them hear us as we clearly say, with our fists in the air, NO to Kavanaugh!”


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#113
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

American Bar Association Reevaluating Kavanaugh's 'Well Qualified' Rating, Citing 'Temperament' Issues

 

https://www.alternet...ting-reexamined

 

Introduction:

 

(ProPublica) On Friday, just ahead of the procedural vote to begin full Senate debate on embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the American Bar Association (ABA) sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), advising that the group was reconsidering its previous rating of "Well Qualified" to the nominee.

 

"New information of a material nature regarding temperament during the September 27th hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee has prompted a reopening of the Standing Committee's evaluation," stated the email, adding that "The Committee does not expect to complete a process and re-vote prior to the scheduled Senate vote."

ABA says it is reopening evaluation of Kavanaugh’s well-qualified rating, which the GOP hailed during confirmation process. It says it is evaluating “temperament” issues pic.twitter.com/ipbrhMgtDW

SPONSORED

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) October 5, 2018

 

The ABA, a trade association of over 410,000 lawyers which devises model codes of legal and academic ethics, uses its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to rate nominees for federal courts in one of three categories: Well Qualified, Qualified, and Not Qualified. It is broadly considered the gold standard for preliminarily vetting judicial nominees; since the 1950s, every president except George W. Bush and Donald Trump has given the Standing Committee an informal role in the process, sending their nominees for interviews and sometimes pulling nominations the ABA rejects.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#114
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

Senate advances Kavanaugh confirmation to a final vote

 

https://abcnews.go.c...ory?id=58303522

 

Introduction:

 

(ABC) Senators voted to move Brett Kavanaugh's nomination forward Friday morning – a critical step in a protracted confirmation process that has highlighted complicated politics and the #MeToo movement.

 

It's unclear if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the votes to push President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee through a final confirmation.

 

The confirmation vote will likely be held on Saturday.

 

Republicans needed and netted a simple majority of 51 to invoke cloture and move forward with the final vote tomorrow.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#115
SemenaMertvykh

SemenaMertvykh

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts

It would seem that lying under oath isn't grounds for disqualification as long as you're a conservative.

 

Giant Meteor is sure taking its sweet time.



#116
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
What is #metoo?

Give me an objective as possible answer please, not you're opinion on it.

#117
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,179 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

What is #metoo?

Give me an objective as possible answer please, not you're opinion on it.

 

#metoo started out as a social awareness movement for sexual assault and harassment under a power imbalance in hollywood. Many now seem to think it's a primarily feminist movement, when earlier it turned to include men as well with the likes of Terry Crews with a lot of unanimous support. Metoo then grew into a national "movement" against sexual assault and harassment against women in general. Metoo when it grew out of its hollywood start also became another attacking point for the right, and MRAs in general. The hallmark of metoo is accusations of sexual misconduct towards people for public scrutiny and hopefully justice. Of course, they're mostly anecdotal and up for personal interpretation.

 

Honestly though, #metoo's power is gone. Hollywood probably still has many covert sexual predators, and now it's a partisan issue, meaning that it's stuck in stalemate forever.


  • Yuli Ban and Erowind like this

Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/DGe_Sluth3A


#118
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

Unfortunately, I think the issue of men physically dominating women, including sexual assault, has been present throughout history. In that sense it has indeed been stuck in stalemate forever.  The difference being the public focus on the issue.   


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#119
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

The GOP will rue the Kavanaugh confirmation

 

http://theweek.com/a...gh-confirmation

 

Introduction:

 

(This Week) On Saturday, the Senate voted narrowly to destroy the Supreme Court of the United States by confirming the profoundly compromised and nakedly partisan Judge Brett Kavanaugh with a 50-48 vote. The drama, such as it was, really ended by mid-afternoon Friday as the critical senator announced in an incredibly long and self-aggrandizing floor speech that she would vote yes, proving that the best way to get what you want in the world is lying shamelessly to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) in an hours-long, private conversation. Kavanaugh joins a court whose swing seat was stolen in 2016, whose popular legitimacy is in tatters, whose every 5-4 decision in the coming years will be regarded as corrupted by a majority of Americans, and whose place in the American political system will never be the same.

 

The combination of bad faith and procedural manipulation by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his allies during this process is unlikely to ever be forgotten by any Democrat currently breathing air as a sentient adult. Kavanaugh was a dreadful nominee from the word go, a lifelong partisan hack whose grubby, enthusiastically beer-crusted fingers were all over nearly every embarrassing national spectacle between the late 1990s and his ascension to the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2006, including The Starr Report, Bush v. Gore, and the widespread and illegal use of torture as part of the war on terror. Senate Republicans were so terrified of this sordid, extremely well-documented history that they refused to release the majority of Kavanaugh's long paper trail to the Senate Judiciary Committee, preferring instead an unprecedentedly opaque and rushed process designed to steward him to this very moment of narrow victory.

 

gettyimages-1046603812.jpg?itok=4FCEufy2


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#120
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,954 posts

White House Counsel Prevented FBI From Full Kavanaugh Investigation Even After Trump OK'd It: Report

 

https://www.alternet.org/white-house-counsel-prevented-fbi-full-kavanaugh-investigation-even-after-trump-okd-it-report

 

Introduction:

 

 

(Alternet) Last week, President Donald Trump agreed to allow the FBI to conduct an investigation of the rape and attempted rape charges levied against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) demanded them before agreeing to support the nominee.

 

That investigation only took a few days and involved just nine witnesses, neither of which was Kavanaugh or Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who says she survived an attack by the judge.

 

According to a new report by the New York Times, that wasn't Trump's fault.

 

Rather, "an exasperated President Trump" actually wanted a real investigation and was thwarted by the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

 

…. McGahn convinced Trump that "a wide-ranging inquiry like some Democrats were demanding — and Mr. Trump was suggesting — would be potentially disastrous for Judge Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation to the Supreme Court."


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users