The end of SCOTUS

@metal-brain said
When Biden becomes president and every single SCOTUS pick he makes is accused of sexual misconduct from decades ago, what will liberals think then?
This is a dangerous precedent to set. Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and don't know it yet. The precedent will not end because a liberal is in office.

The precedent began with Merrick Garland.

@athousandyoung said
The precedent began with Merrick Garland.

The intent predated Garland.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html

@metal-brain said
I didn't use Biden as an example for nothing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html

This could evolve into a partisan war.

We got it the first three times.

You're just spamming at this point.

Is your point any more true if you make it fourteen times?

@whodey said
Dims don't rape people, only conservatives.

Just ask Clearance Thomas.

You know, your passive-aggressive schtick gets really tiring.

@suzianne said
We got it the first three times.

You're just spamming at this point.

Is your point any more true if you make it fourteen times?

ATY didn't get it. You saying "we" is speaking for others.
I think you hate being reminded of Biden starting the whole thing. Partisans hate being reminded of their hypocrisy.

@no1marauder said
Generally in our legal system, juries don't decide punishment. And judges who do are constrained by the law in effect.

So the question is should a woman who gets an abortion be prosecuted under the same laws as any other "baby killer" in your and other right wingers' views? And if the answer to that question is "yes" shouldn't you and other right wingers be more forthright in declaring such a result will be the inevitable, logical result of a reversal of Roe v. Wade?

I suppose I started this so I can't complain. *sigh*

Well, the abortionist should receive the worst punishment since he/she is the killer, but the mother and anyone else knowingly involved (birth father for ex) should be in trouble too.

You seem to think you're catching me out on this, like I'm going to shrink from the idea of prosecuting and punishing people for killing a human being. I'm not. It IS the logical result of my position. What the ultimate penalty would actually end up being in this abortion-tolerant society is unknowable, would vary by state etc. I doubt very much it would be death penalty, but if that were the case I'm still a yes. The relative few of those deaths would be more just than the dumpsters full of babies we currently generate. 200 years from now we could look back at the dark period of our history where the barbaric practice of abortion was embraced by misguided people, just like we currently look back at slavery or the holocaust.

I know you know I'm not religious but I'll state it here just to shorten the thread. I'm also aware of the rift in my position when it comes to the question of what to do about mother's engaged in self-harm or starvation to end an unwanted pregnancy. I don't have an answer there yet other than to say it's an area where a law is essentially unenforceable, much like laws against suicide. I don't regard this a bigger problem than the made up magic line of "viability" that you use to separate a precious human being from a worthless clump. There are no perfect arguments in this area. I've chosen the side I believe to be the most moral, and that errs on the side of preserving innocent human life.

Talk is cheap. The Right began actually doing it.

@metal-brain said
When Biden becomes president and every single SCOTUS pick he makes is accused of sexual misconduct from decades ago, what will liberals think then?
This is a dangerous precedent to set. Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and don't know it yet. The precedent will not end because a liberal is in office.

The dangerous precedent is finding out a judge sitting on the SCOTUS is actually guilty of sexual assaults.

And then sweeping that under the carpet !!

All because some dinosaurs want to reinstate a patriarchal society under the guise of valuing human life.

Accusations will get no traction without Media support.

R's can accuse all they want, if NY Times, NBC, CBS, etc decide it's not news, then it isn't going to have an impact. Ford's accusation would have been laughed off by the press is Kavanaugh was a liberal.

@sleepyguy said
I suppose I started this so I can't complain. *sigh*

Well, the abortionist should receive the worst punishment since he/she is the killer, but the mother and anyone else knowingly involved (birth father for ex) should be in trouble too.

You seem to think you're catching me out on this, like I'm going to shrink from the idea of prosecuting and punishing people for kil ...[text shortened]... he side I believe to be the most moral, and that errs on the side of preserving innocent human life.

I think 200 years from now , our descendants will look back and consider ideas like that as quaint as phrenology. Modern thinking has moved away from the idea that a woman's bodily sovereignty is any business of the State and a contrary retrograde view held by a minority in one country is unlikely to alter future philosophical trends.

Really thinking that "viability" is a "magic line" rather than a biological reality makes your views even more fanciful than the most delusional believer in anthropomorphic Gods.

But thanks anyway, I only wish politicians who share your position would be so openly honest about it.

@athousandyoung said
Talk is cheap. The Right began actually doing it.

And the right keep promising to do something about it but all they wind up with are back stabbers like Judge Roberts.

Funny that.

@metal-brain said
I think you hate being reminded of Biden starting the whole thing. Partisans hate being reminded of their hypocrisy.

These explain why McConnell's precedent was different:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-b-b-but-what-about-the-biden-rule-20170407-story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/biden-rule-supreme-court/index.html

And this explains the irony that nominees by Republican presidents with Democrat-controlled Senates resulted in 15 hearings and 15 votes and 12 confirmations, whereas nominees by Democratic presidents with Republican-controlled Senates (the only example in recent history was, in fact, Obama's nomination of Garland) resulted in 0 hearings and 0 votes and 0 confirmations.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10458.pdf

Edit - I also notice that you declined to address McConnell's new precedent to set confirmation at 50%+1 votes rather than 60.

@mghrn55 said
The dangerous precedent is finding out a judge sitting on the SCOTUS is actually guilty of sexual assaults.

And then sweeping that under the carpet !!

All because some dinosaurs want to reinstate a patriarchal society under the guise of valuing human life.

You don't know he is guilty of sexual assaults. Have you ever heard of presumption of innocence?

@wittywonka said
These explain why McConnell's precedent was different:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-b-b-but-what-about-the-biden-rule-20170407-story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/biden-rule-supreme-court/index.html

And this explains th ...[text shortened]... you declined to address McConnell's new precedent to set confirmation at 50%+1 votes rather than 60.

Republicans did it because Biden made it clear democrats would do the same thing given the opportunity. The Rs just beat the Ds to it.

" I also notice that you declined to address McConnell's new precedent to set confirmation at 50%+1 votes rather than 60."

That was due to a congressional vote, right? I've never really understood why that was possible, but either party was capable of it if they had the votes, right?
You are bringing it up as if the Rs played dirty or something like that. Were democrats too idealistic to resort to it or were they just unfortunate to not have the votes at the right time to do it themselves?

@metal-brain said
You don't know he is guilty of sexual assaults. Have you ever heard of presumption of innocence?

Have you ever heard of testimony under oath?

It's only the Right's desire to control the American people for the forseeable future that keeps them from being reasonable.

Everything they've been working towards since Kennedy is finally coming to fruition, and they're not gonna slow down for anybody. Too bad we don't even have an informed electorate anymore to stop them. Even the press has been neutered.

Time to bring in the Judas goat to lead us all to slaughter.