Supreme Court confirmation looking good.

Greg Hook

Its an interesting point - I was reading an article yesterday which postulated that the reason why the Dem's are so fixated on controlling the make up of the Court is that it is the only way they can drive Liberalism forward as it doesn't win through the ballot box. I'm not convinced it is totally true in every case but in general it does seem to be the case - certainly the argument over abortion for example was not won through the ballot box.

The question is: Why have Republican high-court nominations brought out the worst from the left, going back to the Ronald Reagan era?

The short answer is that liberals fear their major cultural victories of the past half-century are democratically illegitimate. Not a single one was won at the ballot box, going back to the Supreme Court’s 1965 Griswold decision, which recognized a constitutional right to contraceptives. From abortion to gay marriage, plus a host of less titillating issues, modern liberalism has lived by the Court. And liberals fear their cause will die by the Court.
​I'm not sure how you would change the system even if the politicians wanted to.

krish

Nope, it's pretty clear that they are, especially the bit in the article you shared that said, "We did a fundraiser for Sen. Baldwin six years ago when we ran for the Senate, we supported her then".

The contentious point is if their open support of the Democrats has somehow swayed their legal right to support the accuser?  Clearly it hasn't as, since they've taken on the accusers' case, they've dropped the public fundraising support of the Democratic party through the event they were running in their own offices, to concentrate on the legal case.  Therefore, your post that said;

"Even if Mrs Ford is not politically motivated I dont think anyone would claim that her Lawyer isnt..

Not looking good.."

...is essentially stating the obvious, that her lawyers are Democrat supporters....as are many millions of other Americans.

Are you not more concerned about the good wholesome honest family man you're supporting for the lifetime membership of the highest court in America having bragged in his yearbook about "the Devil's triangle", and his character witness was an alcoholic throughout the same period so is hardly a great arbiter of truth?

Pacifico

In fact more voters are Democrats than Republicans, but that's for another day.

weaviemx5

^^ and for another thread ... which he's banned from
- hence these recent bypass attempts

Pacifico

But nobody is claiming that. The feeling is that this allegation is politically motivated simply to stop the confirmation process - as time goes by it becomes more apparent that is the case.

It's like the claim that the FBI should investigate before Mrs Ford testifies under oath. How are they going to investigate a claim where even the claimant doesn't remember when it happened, or where it happened or even how many people were involved. If the Dems want a criminal investigation then Mrs Ford could simply report this attempted murder to the police as in Maryland (where the school is situated) there is no statute of limitations on felony cases (assuming that the attack occurred in Maryland which nobody knows).

So is it a search for the truth or a means to delay the confirmation past the election?

krish

?

"Even if Mrs Ford is not politically motivated I dont think anyone would claim that her Lawyer isnt..Not looking good.."

You're claiming it yourself, as is the article you linked to, which happily then contradicts itself.

So you're saying that the accuser is politically motivated, not the lawyers, who are simply representing her.  Whilst it may be a politically or more likely if true, personally, motivated decision to come forward now, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated as per any other accusation.  You're right that it should be reported to the Police and progressed accordingly.

Pacifico

Why do you think the complainant or her Lawyers have not done that?

As for your other point I think you need to read what I wrote again - I did not say that the Lawyers should not be allowed to represent the Lady, just questioning their motivation..

weaviemx5

Probably both, but certainly doesn't compare to what the GOP did over Merrick Garland - steal a SCOTUS seat!

Toko Black

This circus gets more ridiculous by the minute..

The examples of misleading tales are apparent for all to see, mostly on the anti-Kavanaugh side.

For example, MSNBC goes heavy with a story affirming the allegations from Ford's classmate based on a Facebook post. The classmate later admitted to not even knowing Ford or hearing a story firsthand. The national news outlet covered this without, apparently, any reasonable vetting.

"I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen,” Ford schoolmate Christina King Miranda wrote. “Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However, Christine’s vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true.”  

This was enough for MSNBC and other outlets to run with the story.

"That it happened or not, I have no idea," King Miranda told NPR on Friday. "I can't say that it did or didn't."

"I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter," she later added.​
Media must set higher standard for reporting career-ending accusations

Toko Black

Surely questioning their motives for representing a legal complainant is the same as asking if they're politically biased for taking it on?

As for your other post about holding media to higher standards, did Fox News/Trump ever get to the bottom of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate?