SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I gotta say, everything I've read about her responses today and yesterday have me impressed. she is way more intellectual than Kavanaugh. 

She just much more reserved and knows how to say what she needs to. Kavanaugh is a stooge and typical of a white male in power, couldn't handle someone challenging him. 

Yeah never mind that he was being accused of rape, in front of the world, from an alleged incident decades ago, with had no evidence against him except the testimony of the accuser. He's just a typical white male in power acting like one!

Yeah because his accuser wasn't credible at all.

She talked very well, so I guess that’s the only way to gage her credibility without any evidence. I wonder where she was all those years as he advanced higher and higher in the justice system, because she said she had a duty to come forth when he was appointed to the SC. And I know, it’s not easy to come forth with your story if you were sexually assaulted. So maybe that’s why she never reported it to police or came forth at any other time as he kept moving higher and higher up in the justice system. Yet when he’s about to make it to the very top, she’s willing to tell the world her story....

Her story changed multiple times. Including the year it happened, how wild she was, and how many people were there. That’s what brought into question her credibility more than the timing I think. 

Now maybe that’s due to the traumatic experience, but it still plays a role in credibility.

there's also the factor of how much time had passed. of course details are going to get fuzzy. but that fact also plays into how accurate her take on the event was as well. however, many experts stated, I believe, that it's quite common for mundane details to be lost to time, but the event is burned in memory, which I could see. 

why would someone come forward and potentially ruin their lives for that, knowing full well it would amount to nothing?

If you’re suggestion the accounts get fuzzy over time so that the earlier accounts are more accurate, I believe the earlier timelines were when Kavanaugh wasn’t even in town anymore. They were later changed to match when he was in town. I don’t have time to double check that right now, but that was one of the things I remember being an issue.

Are you sure you aren't confusing accusers?  There was an accuser that ended up admitting they lied.

Blasey-Ford took a polygraph and the result was "no deception"

Ford definitely changed her story several times, including the year and location

And she definitely took a polygraph with a "no deception" result.

people only say polygraphs are right when it shows the person is lying

brianlux

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/amy-coney-barrett-refuses-to-tell-kamala-harris-if-she-thinks-climate-change-is-happening

Amy Coney Barrett refuses to tell Kamala Harris if she thinks climate change is happening

"Supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett refused to say whether she accepts the science of climate change, under questioning from Kamala Harris, saying she lacked the expertise to know for sure and calling it a topic too controversial to get into."

Get out and look around you, lady.  The rest of us get it.  Do you really doubt the opinion of the vast majority of legitimate scientists?  Or are you just to weak to admit you're in DENIAL?

Gern Blansten

Her bumbling the first amendment question was interesting...

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

Her bumbling the first amendment question was interesting...

Bumbling? I thought she couldn’t answer it?

Gern Blansten

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

Her bumbling the first amendment question was interesting...

Bumbling? I thought she couldn’t answer it?

she got 4 of the 5.....80% B-

mace1229

brianlux said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/amy-coney-barrett-refuses-to-tell-kamala-harris-if-she-thinks-climate-change-is-happening

Amy Coney Barrett refuses to tell Kamala Harris if she thinks climate change is happening

"Supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett refused to say whether she accepts the science of climate change, under questioning from Kamala Harris, saying she lacked the expertise to know for sure and calling it a topic too controversial to get into."

Get out and look around you, lady.  The rest of us get it.  Do you really doubt the opinion of the vast majority of legitimate scientists?  Or are you just to weak to admit you're in DENIAL?

But she refused to answer all questions like that citing its not only common practice to not answer but also unethical for a judge to express their views outside of a case so I don’t think it’s fair to single out one issue and say she refused to comment.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

Her bumbling the first amendment question was interesting...

Bumbling? I thought she couldn’t answer it?

she got 4 of the 5.....80% B-.

that was embarrassing. would I have known it? no. but i'm canadian and don't know much about the constitution. she's a judge. and aspiring SCJ. her "no notes" confidence just blew up in her face. maybe she should have written cheat notes on her arm. my god. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

Her bumbling the first amendment question was interesting...

Bumbling? I thought she couldn’t answer it?

she got 4 of the 5.....80% B-.

that was embarrassing. would I have known it? no. but i'm canadian and don't know much about the constitution. she's a judge. and aspiring SCJ. her "no notes" confidence just blew up in her face. maybe she should have written cheat notes on her arm. my god. 

I really didn't understand the "no notes" thing at all....why would she need notes?  She didn't shit her pants either...should we commend her for that?

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

Her bumbling the first amendment question was interesting...

Bumbling? I thought she couldn’t answer it?

she got 4 of the 5.....80% B-

I prefer my SCOTUS nominees to score an A+ on their constitutional knowledge, at least. It wasn’t some arcane amendment or Section/Article, it was the First fucking Amendment for crying out loud. But you know, the dumbing down of ‘Murica and the radical left’s trap.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

Her bumbling the first amendment question was interesting...

Bumbling? I thought she couldn’t answer it?

she got 4 of the 5.....80% B-.

that was embarrassing. would I have known it? no. but i'm canadian and don't know much about the constitution. she's a judge. and aspiring SCJ. her "no notes" confidence just blew up in her face. maybe she should have written cheat notes on her arm. my god. 

I really didn't understand the "no notes" thing at all....why would she need notes?  She didn't shit her pants either...should we commend her for that?

i think cavanaugh had notes.....a list of craft beers he was going to buy on the way home. 

mace1229

So people think that in 20 hours of questioning that because she named 4 freedoms in about as many seconds and then asked which one did I forget means she doesn’t know the constitution? 

If I was questioned for 20 hours about Pearl Jam then asked to name all 11 albums I’d probably miss one too.
Watxhing this hearing you’d think a Republican pres never nominated a judge with a conservative history or that a democratic president never nominated a liberal judge before.

josevolution

mace1229 said:

So people think that in 20 hours of questioning that because she named 4 freedoms in about as many seconds and then asked which one did I forget means she doesn’t know the constitution? 

If I was questioned for 20 hours about Pearl Jam then asked to name all 11 albums I’d probably miss one too.
Watxhing this hearing you’d think a Republican pres never nominated a judge with a conservative history or that a democratic president never nominated a liberal judge before.

She lied through her teeth! She’ll vote to repeal ACÁ she’ll vote to get rid of Roe that’s why she was nominated that’s her payment back to the GOP..

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

So people think that in 20 hours of questioning that because she named 4 freedoms in about as many seconds and then asked which one did I forget means she doesn’t know the constitution? 

If I was questioned for 20 hours about Pearl Jam then asked to name all 11 albums I’d probably miss one too.
Watxhing this hearing you’d think a Republican pres never nominated a judge with a conservative history or that a democratic president never nominated a liberal judge before.

part of the issue is, and I know this isn't necessarily the right way to judge people or events, but it's so ingrained in us now because of the rampant hypocrisy many of us see on the right, many of us think "how would the other side react if this were flipped?". imagine if garland had been up there, and forgot one of the 5. fox news would be outraged and would be calling for the nomination to be rescinded. republican senators would probably start flipping tables in protest. 

but there is also a higher expectation that a potential SCJ can withstand hours of testimony and still remember details, especialy fundamental details of the very document she is sworn to uphold. you'd think an originalist would have the damn thing memorized. 

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

So people think that in 20 hours of questioning that because she named 4 freedoms in about as many seconds and then asked which one did I forget means she doesn’t know the constitution? 

If I was questioned for 20 hours about Pearl Jam then asked to name all 11 albums I’d probably miss one too.
Watxhing this hearing you’d think a Republican pres never nominated a judge with a conservative history or that a democratic president never nominated a liberal judge before.

I think she should have known the answer.  

Bentleyspop

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

Her bumbling the first amendment question was interesting...

Bumbling? I thought she couldn’t answer it?

she got 4 of the 5.....80% B-.

that was embarrassing. would I have known it? no. but i'm canadian and don't know much about the constitution. she's a judge. and aspiring SCJ. her "no notes" confidence just blew up in her face. maybe she should have written cheat notes on her arm. my god. 

I really didn't understand the "no notes" thing at all....why would she need notes?  She didn't shit her pants either...should we commend her for that?

i think cavanaugh had notes.....a list of craft beers he was going to buy on the way home. 

There's no way that repressed republican drinks craft beer.

Ledbetterman10

mace1229 said:

So people think that in 20 hours of questioning that because she named 4 freedoms in about as many seconds and then asked which one did I forget means she doesn’t know the constitution? 

If I was questioned for 20 hours about Pearl Jam then asked to name all 11 albums I’d probably miss one too.
Watxhing this hearing you’d think a Republican pres never nominated a judge with a conservative history or that a democratic president never nominated a liberal judge before.

Even the most partisan among us wouldn't blame ya for forgetting Backspacer. 

HughFreakingDillon

Bentleyspop said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

Her bumbling the first amendment question was interesting...

Bumbling? I thought she couldn’t answer it?

she got 4 of the 5.....80% B-.

that was embarrassing. would I have known it? no. but i'm canadian and don't know much about the constitution. she's a judge. and aspiring SCJ. her "no notes" confidence just blew up in her face. maybe she should have written cheat notes on her arm. my god. 

I really didn't understand the "no notes" thing at all....why would she need notes?  She didn't shit her pants either...should we commend her for that?

i think cavanaugh had notes.....a list of craft beers he was going to buy on the way home. 

There's no way that repressed republican drinks craft beer.

hey, everyone punches up once in a while

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

So people think that in 20 hours of questioning that because she named 4 freedoms in about as many seconds and then asked which one did I forget means she doesn’t know the constitution? 

If I was questioned for 20 hours about Pearl Jam then asked to name all 11 albums I’d probably miss one too.
Watxhing this hearing you’d think a Republican pres never nominated a judge with a conservative history or that a democratic president never nominated a liberal judge before.

She has spent her entire adult life studying, speaking and apparently upholding the constitution and represents herself as a “strict” constitutionalist, yet she couldn’t name all five rights of the First Amendment. Not some obscure decision from yesteryear. Not some opinion of hers as it relates to some current issue. The FIRST AMENDMENT.

mace1229

How many of us who are parents haven’t forgotten our own kids names for a few seconds? I’ve called them our dog’s name before. That doesn’t mean I don’t know his name or haven’t spent my adult life providing for them. But it’s how the brain works. It means nothing.
And true, if it was flipped Fox News would probably be making a big deal of it. It would still mean nothing then.

Halifax2TheMax

Because forgetting your kids’ names or calling them your pets names is the same as being interviewed for a seat on the highest court in the land and for which represents the pinnacle of your career achievement and you can’t name all five of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment? Sure.