scotus confirmed

[New2vp]

Carcounter, thanks, excellent read.

The issue before us had lots of drama depending not only on your politics, but also your gender, your belief about what is a fair gauge of truth, your feelings about people getting away with things (either the accusers and those who side with them or the accused and those who side with him), your feelings about what and how Supreme Court justices should decide cases, and even if you are a "lumper" or a "splitter" in how you analyze ideas. Was this a crucial or even important factor in sexual assault or sexual harassment (realizing that the actual legal definitions of these terms have changed over the last 40 years)? Will this be held up as an example to help future sex perpetrators get away with their acts? Or is it just an isolated case resting on its own characteristics that defies generalization? Was it an orchestrated hit?

Whatever you decide for yourself, it may be instructive for at least a moment to try and understand that there are people who think differently based on who knows what based on experiences or perhaps even genetics. Of course, it is easy to assign poor motives, ignorance, or ill will towards those who think differently ... and, who knows, that may be correct sometimes. I don't know the solution to bringing more harmony between these two (or more) ways of thinking. And, of course, even after trying to understand the other side, I'm still quite likely to remain comfortable on the side that I have chosen ... but more comfortable now that I've given some thought to the other side.

[Carcounter]

Fair enough, but I don't think the other side is that understanding. They will continue to harass anyone who doesn't agree with them.

[notes1]

'it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent suffer". this was the generally accepted principle that we all lived by, including those on the left. until recently, when it became politically inconvenient.

to reach back to one's teen years to find some unsubstantiated accusation, as a means to ruin a person's name, reputation and chances of employment should frighten everyone. should an adult man or woman be prevented from job advancement, even though he/she may have been a free spirit 'sexually' or drank too much beer, when they was in high or college? this can work against both sexes. be careful, you could be next.

do not be confused, this was always about politics. the left hates trump, and will do everything to damage him. fair enough, politics is dirty. but, do not believe this had anything to do with the accuser. she was simply a disposable tool to damage trump, via the nominee, in an effort to gain power.

soon, they will move on to the next.....

[Carcounter]

Yep, they always do. Don't want to rehash the inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's story, but if you remember you were 15 years old, how can you not know what summer it was? Do you know your birthday? Can you not do simple math? WTF?

[DaBurglar]

I agree 100% with the last two posts....especially the part about "It's better that 10 guilty go free than 1 person be wrongfully imprisoned" etc. Nothing disturbs me more than the knowledge we have today, that is 100% REAL and true, that there are indeed innocent people languishing in prisons all over this supposed "great" country with its "freedom & Justice" for all! And yes, this whole thing was political, which, for those of you who always enjoy harkening back to the Constitution and what was originally intended, flies in the face AGAINST what was supposed to be the norm.

The Supreme court JUDGES are supposed to be NON-political....the process to select them NON-political (or more realistically, politics is NOT supposed to be the primary impetus and criteria in the whole undertaking...) The term, or word JUDGE implies and is supposed to stand for IMPARTIALITY....we no longer have that with the majority of justices....you have ardent Left leaning justices and ardent right leaning justices, with more to come apparently. This is WRONG

[notes1]

justice KAGAN was quoted by wapo that w/out kennedy, the court has lost it's lone centrist justice. what she left out was the last two centrists (kennedy and o'connor) were BOTH appointed by rep presidents. she is also admitting that she is a partisan. why can'rt she be a centrist?

scotus has been left leaning for decades. dems cannot get voters to agree with many of their positions, so the method to get their way, has been to get the courts to make law, not interpret it.

what is laughingly obvious is that when liberals do not get their way, they have a hissy fit. if i were a liberal, i would be embarrassed by the videos of protesters taking their marching orders like robots and them pounding on the door of the supreme court.

the dems have allowed college campus mob rule, hooded, entitled, immature 'kids' to be the face of their party. i have a hard time believing voters will want to put their future in the hands of folks like this.

[billryan]

What's the face of the republican party today? Angry old white men? Good luck with that.

[jetermacaw]

I’m an old white man, and really very happy with the turn of events.

[billryan]

I’m an old white man, and really very happy with the turn of events.

Thank you for proving my point.

[DaBurglar]

I know lots of intelligent hard-working "kids"....the ones seen in the news ranting on campuses for gay rights or abortions do NOT represent the majority of young adults in the USA. In fact, a lot of people I know between 18-25 are fed up with both parties and echo what I used to say, a third alternative is needed .... When your choices are either Donald Trump or Pelosi/Feinstein/Schumer etc. can you blame them?