Do you support Mr. Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford?

[RainbowSingularity]

Well, here is the thing Rainbow, there is no Biden Rule. The "Biden Rule" is complete unmitigated bullshit invented by a dishonest Republican politician in an attempt to rationalize the unjustifiable.

it certainly looks like the Republicans are attempting to play both sides of the personality politics game.

 

[exchemist]

If Kavanaugh committed a crime he would not automatically forfeit his position. Supreme court justices are appointed for life. Only death, resignation, or an act of Congress can remove a sitting justice from the court. And with a compliant Republican Congress, aside from departing from the Republican party line, there is nothing Kavanaugh could do which would cause Congress to remove him from the court. Just as Trump could walk out onto 5th Avenue and shoot people without suffering any political blowback from his base, Kavanaugh could do the same.

OK. Can a Supreme Court judge be tried, convicted and given a custodian sentence?

 

[joepistole]

OK. Can a Supreme Court judge be tried, convicted and givein a custodian sentence?

Yes, as long as the courts allow it. There is nothing in the law preventing it. But the law is whatever the court says it is. There is nothing in the law preventing a sitting president from being indicted and tried for his crimes. In fact, there is legal precedent for the indictment of a sitting president. Yet some Republicans, like Kavanaugh, believe the president is above the law. The law is whatever the court say it is.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Yes, as long as the courts allow it. There is nothing in the law preventing it. But the law is whatever the court says it is. There is nothing in the law preventing a sitting president from being indicted and tried for his crimes. In fact, there is legal precedent for the indictment of a sitting president. Yet some Republicans, like Kavanaugh, believe the president is above the law. The law is whatever the court say it is.

Isn't it the congress that writes laws?

 

[sculptor]

Isn't it the congress that writes laws?

Well, they certainly should:

Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

However, it seems that most laws are written by lobbyists.

And, then: If the constitutionality of a law is questioned, the courts weigh in on the law. The final arbiter is the supreme court.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Well, they certainly should:

Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

However, it seems that most laws are written by lobbyists.

And, then: If the constitutionality of a law is questioned, the courts weigh in on the law. The final arbiter is the supreme court.

Who can make a constitutional amendment or something?

 

[sculptor]

Who can make a constitutional amendment or something?

Article V (Article 5 - Mode of Amendment)
The Congress, whenever Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures ofthree fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ...

"on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,"
was added by the folks who gave us the "bill of rights"

And, then we have "legislating from the bench" a.k.a. Judicial activism
(normally in reference to the supreme court)

 

[joepistole]

Who can make a constitutional amendment or something?

The standard for changing the Constitution is so high it's virtually impossible to do. In the 231 years since its ratification, it has only been changed 17 times. It's much easier to stuff the courts with your stooges as Republicans and their financial supporters have done.

 

[sculptor]

We have 27 amendments
After the 1st 12 were ratified it took 61 years before the next one
since then we have had roughly one amendment every 10 years

 

[joepistole]

We have 27 amendments
After the 1st 12 were ratified it took 61 years before the next one
since then we have had roughly one amendment every 10 years

Yes, we do have 27 amendments. The first 10 were packaged together as the Bill of Rights and passed together as a package. The Bill of rights was one change, not 10. Two, the last time the Constitution was changed was May 5, 1992, more than 26 years ago, and it only took 202 years and 7 months to ratify it and for it to become part of the Constitution, and it was a rather innocuous change to the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution are very difficult.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, as long as the courts allow it. There is nothing in the law preventing it. But the law is whatever the court says it is. There is nothing in the law preventing a sitting president from being indicted and tried for his crimes. In fact, there is legal precedent for the indictment of a sitting president. Yet some Republicans, like Kavanaugh, believe the president is above the law. The law is whatever the court say it is.

Er, not quite, surely. They are bound by statute and precedent, are they not?

 

[joepistole]

Er, not quite, surely. They are bound by statute and precedent, are they not?

No, they aren't bound by statues. The statues are whatever they say they are. The Constitution is whatever the court says it is. The courts can and have reversed their decisions and the previous decisions of other courts. The Supreme Court isn't bound by statue or by previous court decisions, e.g. Bush v Gore.

 

[sculptor]

Er, not quite, surely. They are bound by statute and precedent, are they not?

sometimes
sometimes not
Judicial activism has been a relative constant
circa 1800 Jefferson had a problem with Marshals federalists leaning judgements
and referred to him as a despot and the court as despotic.

 

[pjdude1219]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/yorker-bombshell-second-woman-accuses-002935481.html

second accusation wonder how the defenders of the indefensible will smear her.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Aside, didn't Clinton get people nominated for something by talking to like some republicans beforehand to make sure they were cool with his pick?

 

[joepistole]

Aside, didn't Clinton get people nominated for something by talking to like some republicans beforehand to make sure they were cool with his pick?

He did, but Clinton wasn't a Republican. That's not how Republicans roll.

 

[iceaura]

The first 10 were packaged together as the Bill of Rights and passed together as a package. The Bill of rights was one change, not 10.

The Bill of Rights was passed simultaneously and identically with ratification. It was not a change to a previously ratified Constitution, but part of the original document.

However, it seems that most laws are written by lobbyists.

Thank you Ronald Reagan - for behold, the legacy of that Presidency passeth down from generation to generation, and abideth with us unto the ends of our days. Apparently.

Judicial activism has been a relative constant

It's an odd concept, this "activism".

In some cases it refers to legally correcting gross errors of legal judgment - such as in overruling previous denial of Constitutional rights to various citizens of the US. In these cases it is - invariably - the correction that is termed "activism", while the original abrogation of the Constitution and judicial overruling of its provisions is termed "originalist" or "conservative" or something.

On the other hand, blatant examples of judicial creativity and unsupported invention and overruling of precedent in recent times
- such as the Citizens United ruling, which extended Constitutional rights to entities that are not US citizens, not human beings, not in existence when the Constitution was written, and in general (had they existed) would have been prosecuted as criminal enterprises at the time the Constitution was written -
are not routinely labeled "activism".

So the term is - let's say - flexibly and operationally defined, in practice.

But even given the state of the current Court, sad though it may have become in the wake of Bush v Gore, the nomination of someone like Kavanaugh to sit on it and rule on such significant matters for decades to come is nauseating. There is no way to hide the smell. There is no way to support Kavanaugh's nomination and stay clean.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Erm, when it comes to the news I usually like to wait for some cross reference. The media attention Michael Avenatti has been getting, however, suggests to me that this can get more political.

“We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them,”

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...anaugh-gang-rape-avenatti-20180923-story.html

:EDIT:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ugh-exposed-himself-to-her-at-yale-party.html

 

[iceaura]

Erm, when it comes to the news I usually like to wait for some cross reference.

The cross references already available here go back a couple of years - to things like dark money reports from 2015 and 2016.
And it cannot get "more political" - it's a Republican partisan political story from the gitgo.

 

[Xelor]

Well let's put it this way

I have numerous reports from numerous people giving numerous details which vary in numerous ways

What I requested was the text of the complaint

Not the Chinese whisper versions

Please do you have the text of the complaint?



PS - Moon

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanau...ter-9337f417-1078-4334-8a81-c2b4fc051f99.html

Understand that legally complaint means something specific: it means one has, with a law enforcement organization, filed an affidavit identifying an unlawful wrong that one suffered. AFAIK, Dr. Ford hasn't filed an affidavit with any law enforcement organization. AFAIK, all Dr. Ford has done is share information.