Discussion: The Supreme Court II

[MaceB]

No serious minded person will tell you that accusers should be believed without question. Yes... the phrase "believe women" or "believe accusers" goes around quite a bit. But I think you have to see that as shorthand for... "we need to assume that accusers are being honest."

Which is a different thing. That just speaks to their motivations - not their accuracy. No one is saying that a woman can come up 25 years after the fact, and get a man thrown in prison for just accusing him. No one thinks that. We're simply saying, don't discount her. She has something to say; let's hear it, and then vet it out. Let's not assume that she's a politico or a liar... cause all things being equal... it's most likely that she's here honestly and not some political saboteur.

 

[Sithborg]

In other news, Kavanaugh is so right that Gorsuch was telling him to take a chill pill.

 

[Donner]

No serious minded person will tell you that accusers should be believed without question. Yes... the phrase "believe women" or "believe accusers" goes around quite a bit. But I think you have to see that as shorthand for... "we need to assume that accusers are being honest."

Which is a different thing. That just speaks to their motivations - not their accuracy. No one is saying that a woman can come up 25 years after the fact, and get a man thrown in prison for just accusing him. No one thinks that. We're simply saying, don't discount her. She has something to say; let's hear it, and then vet it out. Let's not assume that she's a politico or a liar... cause all things being equal... it's most likely that she's here honestly and not some political saboteur.

I personally think that the "believe accusers" means to believe accusers, until proven otherwise. Which means that all accusations should warrant an investigation. The problem is that for centuries, people (mostly women) weren't believed, no one cared, and no investigation was ever conducted. It's finally shifting and that is a good, nay, great thing.

 

[MaceB]

I personally think that the "believe accusers" means to believe accusers, until proven otherwise. Which means that all accusations should warrant an investigation. The problem is that for centuries, people (mostly women) weren't believed, no one cared, and no investigation was ever conducted. It's finally shifting and that is a good, nay, great thing.

I agree.. "Believe accusers" is not being used in the sense that we should just believe all accusations no matter what. It being used to say that we need to assume that they are being serious. We have to treat it with seriousness. We shouldn't just deny it and walk away.

Now if we do investigate and we find no supporting evidence... well people are presumed innocent in the court of law, and that's how it should stay. What the court of public opinion thinks is up to them though.

 

[Donner]

I agree.. "Believe accusers" is not being used in the sense that we should just believe all accusations no matter what. It being used to say that we need to assume that they are being serious. We have to treat it with seriousness. We shouldn't just deny it and walk away.

Now if we do investigate and we find no supporting evidence... well people are presumed innocent in the court of law, and that's how it should stay. What the court of public opinion thinks is up to them though.

This is tough, too. The criminal justice system in North America is atrocious. OJ Simpson is certainly not innocent. Miscarriages of justice do happen and it's not as rare as it should be. The best part is, in a fit of hypocrisy, some people here will argue that the court of law is the only one that matters and in a different post, blast the criminal justice system for not hanging a murderer or for not sentencing them to a longer term.

I think that all of this starts at home. Parents need to raise better children. And teachers need to start punishing boys for their behaviour (snapping bra straps, bullying, etc). And then there needs to be a law against street harassment like they have in France.

 

[MaceB]

I agree the justice system is imperfect. For the most part, they try to avoid court at all costs, and I think that that benefits the powerful and the rich. I think that if a credible woman (or man) comes up with sexual abuse charges, then I want my justice system to investigate it. If there's nothing besides the accuser's word... then unfortunately, that doesn't meat the criteria of a preponderance of evidence, and it'll have to be let go. If, however, the accuser is backed up by mountains of character witnesses, as well as corroborating factors... then I'd like to see prosecutors take that kind of case to trial more often. These days, prosecutors rely perhaps too heavily on DNA evidence and won't take a case to court unless it's a slam dunk. It's a real shame how many women have credible allegations, but they are overlooked because they didn't file a report immediately and they don't have DNA tracing back to the accused. There's more forms of evidence than just DNA.

If a credible person accuses someone else, then that person deserves to tell their story. Maybe the court will take it up; maybe they won't. Maybe public opinion will win the day; maybe it won't. But insinuating a person is a liar or a ****e because she doesn't have a written confession or DNA evidence is not appropriate.

 

[Donner]

I agree.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Rodney Howard-Browne: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Should be Shot for Treason | Right Wing Watch

In less downer and ridiculous news, Felicity Jones stars as Ginsburg in the upcoming December movie On The Basis Of Sex.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Bloomberg - DOJ [argues to the U.S. Supreme Court]: Businesses Can Discriminate Against Transgender Workers [See also: New York Times - ‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration (October 21, 2018)]

 

[Schlosser85]

CJ likes to act all righteous about abortion, but would he be willing to support insurance policies that cover birth control or Planned Parenthood that help young women get birth control?

Of course not. Because hypocrisy. And he still thinks PP is bad.

You know, for someone on welfare, you might have a little more compassion for poor women who can't afford birth control and need PP.

Because he probably isn’t on welfare.

 

[samsnee]

We are so eff'd if we lose another liberal on the SC.

 

[Teelie]

It is a concern because the Republicans have made it boldly clear they intend to subvert the will of the people to their own and whoever is donating to buying them.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Ugh, I hate the idea of old people falling. Hopefully, she recovers.

But man, if Trump gets another SC appointment before his term is up . . . I wonder if this midterm election will be looked at as anything remotely resembling a victory against Trump--after all, the Republicans gained seats in the chamber responsible for advise/consent of SC justices.

 

[samsnee]

McConnell definitely sees it as a victory. Forget the SC, he will have an even easier time getting judges on the lower courts.

 

[Teelie]

I think she will recover. I also think she would suffer through it to keep Trump from stacking the courts even further against an equal measure of liberal and conservative.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

 

[samsnee]

At this point just pull a Weekend at Bernie’s until we elect another Democrat or they remake the Senate.

 

[samsnee]

Roberts sides with the liberal wing again. I do think he is trying to temper the court under his watch since it now sways more conservative than before.

 

[Marvolo]

FFS. We cant afford to lose her until Trump is removed from office.

 

[MaceB]

FFS. We cant afford to lose her until Trump is removed from office.

Luckily... she knows this.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

RE: Mueller's investigation

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

TF?

 

[samsnee]

F U Lindsey. It's disingenuous to say it's the Democrats fault why only a majority is needed to confirm. Technically he is correct that Reid killed the 60-vote rule for lower courts, but that's only because McConnell stonewalled Obama's nominees in an unprecedented way. This has always been his end game.

Graham 'hell bent' on filling next Supreme Court vacancy with conservative justice, amid Ginsburg health woes

 

[Schlosser85]

TF?

Good thing it's not up to Putin's bootlickers when our Supreme Justices retire.

 

[Teelie]

F U Lindsey. It's disingenuous to say it's the Democrats fault why only a majority is needed to confirm. Technically he is correct that Reid killed the 60-vote rule for lower courts, but that's only because McConnell stonewalled Obama's nominees in an unprecedented way. This has always been his end game.

Graham 'hell bent' on filling next Supreme Court vacancy with conservative justice, amid Ginsburg health woes

****ing hypocrites the Republicans are. Voter fraud? Republicans. Stacking the Supreme Court? Republicans. Government shutdown? Republicans. Racists? Republicans? Anti-homosexual rights? Republicans.

There aren't many terrible things you can't lay at the feet of the Republican Party.