Kavanaugh 'must be impeached,' top Dems say, as new uncorroborated allegation surfaces

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Personally I do not think the NYTimes botched anything.  This looks more like a planned strategy, get the headline out there for their Leftist readers as we know the NYTimes needs to do whatever hit piece it can against Trump to satisfy their base.  Then the correction is glossed over and the NYTimes worshipers will ignore it anyway.  Have any of the Dem candidates that demanded impeachment commented on the corrected story?

I think this is true as well. Supposedly according to the writers they submitted the opinion piece to the NYT with a part talking about how the supposed victim has no recollection or memory of this event at all. Then the NYT purposely took it out. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Cyberfx1024

[Dashinka 24,747]

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I think this is true as well. Supposedly according to the writers they submitted the opinion piece to the NYT with a part talking about how the supposed victim has no recollection or memory of this event at all. Then the NYT purposely took it out. 

Fake News?  Click Bait?  I guess I thought the NYTimes was supposed to be better than that?  I guess not. 

 

On another note, some have speculated that this may be motivational fodder for the Left telegraphing a possible departure of someone from SCOTUS in the near future.

[luckytxn 2,265]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Fake News?  Click Bait?  I guess I thought the NYTimes was supposed to be better than that?  I guess not. 

 

On another note, some have speculated that this may be motivational fodder for the Left telegraphing a possible departure of someone from SCOTUS in the near future.

Thomas was rumored last year he wanted to leave under a Republican so his replacement can be properly filled but we do know Ginsburg is barely hanging in there. This is probably the NYT getting ready for the elections to remind the Democratic Socialist party where their money can be properly spent on ads and the op-eds section. Most people don't know that historically  the reason for "newspapers" was as a mouthpiece of political parties and never as a serious news source. Even Benjamin Franklin became wealthy due to this. He is still regarded as maybe the greatest muckraker of all time.

[Dashinka 24,747]

The attacks on Justice Kavanaugh are an attempt at intimidation to influence his opinions. But if Democrats fail in that, they want to portray conservative opinions of the current Court as illegitimate. Even Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota now says the Judiciary confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh was “a sham.” She knows better but so much for her self-styling as a “moderate.”

 

First a word about the latest smear. The allegations against Justice Kavanaugh arrived in a New York Times piece based on a forthcoming book. The news—this is a generous term—is about a lawyer named Max Stier who allegedly may have seen Justice Kavanaugh expose himself to a woman at a party while a student at Yale. 

Except Mr. Stier wouldn’t speak publicly. An editors’ note appended after publication adds the previously omitted detail that the woman involved “declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.” Oh. 

 

The rest is largely a rehash of allegations from Deborah Ramirez, the subject of a New Yorker story during Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation ordeal last year. The point is to insinuate that Ms. Ramirez’s accusations were credible and not thoroughly investigated. This is a brazen rewriting of history.

.

.

.

This episode is part of the campaign that Democrats are running against the High Court now that it may have (we don’t yet really know) a center-right majority. This includes regular campaigns lecturing Chief Justice John Roberts about “legitimacy” whenever a case with political implications is heard. 

We’ve reported on Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse ’s attempts to tar amicus briefs from sources he doesn’t like. Mr. Whitehouse and other Democrats recently filed an amicus brief threatening the Court with legislative changes if the Justices don’t follow their orders in a gun-control case. Presidential candidates vow to pack the Court with more Justices if they take power.

 

This is the most radical attack on the judiciary in decades. These aren’t crank voices like those posting “Impeach Earl Warren ” billboards in the 1950s. This campaign is led by the power center of the Democratic Party, including Members of the Judiciary Committee such as Ms. Harris who vet judicial nominations. Their attack on a core democratic institution is exactly what they claim President Trump is doing, but Mr. Trump is mostly bluster. 

This assault on the judiciary is being carried out with conviction and malice, as the character assassination against Justice Kavanaugh shows. One motivation is that everything on the left’s new agenda, from the Green New Deal to a wealth tax, depends on favorable court rulings. The left is used to running the nation’s law schools and controlling the courts.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-assault-on-the-supreme-court-11568674522

3 hours ago, luckytxn said:

Thomas was rumored last year he wanted to leave under a Republican so his replacement can be properly filled but we do know Ginsburg is barely hanging in there. This is probably the NYT getting ready for the elections to remind the Democratic Socialist party where their money can be properly spent on ads and the op-eds section. Most people don't know that historically  the reason for "newspapers" was as a mouthpiece of political parties and never as a serious news source. Even Benjamin Franklin became wealthy due to this. He is still regarded as maybe the greatest muckraker of all time.

Activist journalism.

[luckytxn 2,265]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The attacks on Justice Kavanaugh are an attempt at intimidation to influence his opinions. But if Democrats fail in that, they want to portray conservative opinions of the current Court as illegitimate. Even Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota now says the Judiciary confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh was “a sham.” She knows better but so much for her self-styling as a “moderate.”

 

First a word about the latest smear. The allegations against Justice Kavanaugh arrived in a New York Times piece based on a forthcoming book. The news—this is a generous term—is about a lawyer named Max Stier who allegedly may have seen Justice Kavanaugh expose himself to a woman at a party while a student at Yale. 

Except Mr. Stier wouldn’t speak publicly. An editors’ note appended after publication adds the previously omitted detail that the woman involved “declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.” Oh. 

 

The rest is largely a rehash of allegations from Deborah Ramirez, the subject of a New Yorker story during Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation ordeal last year. The point is to insinuate that Ms. Ramirez’s accusations were credible and not thoroughly investigated. This is a brazen rewriting of history.

.

.

.

This episode is part of the campaign that Democrats are running against the High Court now that it may have (we don’t yet really know) a center-right majority. This includes regular campaigns lecturing Chief Justice John Roberts about “legitimacy” whenever a case with political implications is heard. 

We’ve reported on Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse ’s attempts to tar amicus briefs from sources he doesn’t like. Mr. Whitehouse and other Democrats recently filed an amicus brief threatening the Court with legislative changes if the Justices don’t follow their orders in a gun-control case. Presidential candidates vow to pack the Court with more Justices if they take power.

 

This is the most radical attack on the judiciary in decades. These aren’t crank voices like those posting “Impeach Earl Warren ” billboards in the 1950s. This campaign is led by the power center of the Democratic Party, including Members of the Judiciary Committee such as Ms. Harris who vet judicial nominations. Their attack on a core democratic institution is exactly what they claim President Trump is doing, but Mr. Trump is mostly bluster. 

This assault on the judiciary is being carried out with conviction and malice, as the character assassination against Justice Kavanaugh shows. One motivation is that everything on the left’s new agenda, from the Green New Deal to a wealth tax, depends on favorable court rulings. The left is used to running the nation’s law schools and controlling the courts.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-assault-on-the-supreme-court-11568674522

Activist journalism.

For all this to work of packing the court the Democrat Socialist party has to not only win both houses but win a super majority and then win POTUS which is unlikely to happen. The last time the Democratic KKK party tried this they almost were able to back in the 30's with FDR because they had solid majorities. Now they are just blowing smoke up everyones you know what. The Socialists think they have more power than they do so let them hem and haw and gnash their troll teeth. We know the likelihood is Trump will appoint several more solid Conservatives in the next 5 years to the court that will assure us solid Trump wins for generations to come. We can see they haven't learned their lessons of running maybe the one person who couldn't beat Trump the last time in Hillary as the cast of special needs jokes they have running now are showing us.

 

It is a shame to see a fine upstanding man in Kavanaugh have to keep getting attacked unfairly like this but my hopes is he sees this and votes accordingly as solidly a constitutionalist conservative and not as a more of the middle of road type person we expected him to be. I personally think he will stay true to form and vote sometimes with the leftists but this continuing barrage of fake outrage and outright lying to smear this man I hope will harden him to a solid and safe conservative vote.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, luckytxn said:

For all this to work of packing the court the Democrat Socialist party has to not only win both houses but win a super majority and then win POTUS which is unlikely to happen. The last time the Democratic KKK party tried this they almost were able to back in the 30's with FDR because they had solid majorities. Now they are just blowing smoke up everyones you know what. The Socialists think they have more power than they do so let them hem and haw and gnash their troll teeth. We know the likelihood is Trump will appoint several more solid Conservatives in the next 5 years to the court that will assure us solid Trump wins for generations to come. We can see they haven't learned their lessons of running maybe the one person who couldn't beat Trump the last time in Hillary as the cast of special needs jokes they have running now are showing us.

 

It is a shame to see a fine upstanding man in Kavanaugh have to keep getting attacked unfairly like this but my hopes is he sees this and votes accordingly as solidly a constitutionalist conservative and not as a more of the middle of road type person we expected him to be. I personally think he will stay true to form and vote sometimes with the leftists but this continuing barrage of fake outrage and outright lying to smear this man I hope will harden him to a solid and safe conservative vote.

 

 

 Why a super majority? Pretty sure the nuclear option is in play now thanks to McConnell. Live by the sword, die by the sword. 

[luckytxn 2,265]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

 Why a super majority? Pretty sure the nuclear option is in play now thanks to McConnell. Live by the sword, die by the sword. 

Probably the nuclear option of 60% would suffice to pack the court but not sure if it is a change of an amendment which requires a 2/3 vote. May look it up later if I feel like it but doubt I can give a phuk.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

31 minutes ago, luckytxn said:

Probably the nuclear option of 60% would suffice to pack the court but not sure if it is a change of an amendment which requires a 2/3 vote. May look it up later if I feel like it but doubt I can give a phuk.

 

 

   Yeah, the nuclear option is not possible if it's a legislative process. I could only read 1 paragraph of WSJ so I wasn't sure where they got to by the end of the article. 

[Dashinka 24,747]

6 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Yeah, the nuclear option is not possible if it's a legislative process. I could only read 1 paragraph of WSJ so I wasn't sure where they got to by the end of the article. 

It would have to be legislation, so unless the Senate changes its filibuster rules through a bipartisan effort (doubtful), or one party does it through a supermajority it is highly unlikely.  I think this is one of the reasons the Dems and their allies the activist mainstream media are trying to steer the Judiciary politically.  Hence one of the reasons we are seeing a renewed fake news attack on Kavanaugh.

 

https://www.britannica.com/story/why-are-there-nine-justices-on-the-u.s.-supreme-court

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

It would have to be legislation, so unless the Senate changes its filibuster rules through a bipartisan effort (doubtful), or one party does it through a supermajority it is highly unlikely.  I think this is one of the reasons the Dems and their allies the activist mainstream media are trying to steer the Judiciary politically.  Hence one of the reasons we are seeing a renewed fake news attack on Kavanaugh.

 

https://www.britannica.com/story/why-are-there-nine-justices-on-the-u.s.-supreme-court

 

   True, but another reason is they feel they got cheated with Merrick Garland not even getting a hearing. You may blame the Democrats for wanting to do this going forward, but the nomination process has been overly politicized for a long time now, and it's hard to argue that McConnell wasn't the one responsible for taking it up a notch.

 

  My feeling is if Garland got the nod to replace Scalia, Gorsuch would have still been Trump's first appointment and then maybe RBG would have looked at retiring instead of hanging on and waiting for a Democrat. We might have Kavanaugh anyway and have the SC court in a better place too. Only speculation of course, but I don't think the politicization of the SC is a good thing. It might seem that way for conservatives ATM, but it won't when you get some activist judge in there one day with 51 votes. If that happens, you can blame that on McConnell too.

 

  Now we have justices staying on the SC past the natural time when they are ready to move on, hoping and waiting for a partisan replacement. That is not a good look for the highest court in the nation.

[Dashinka 24,747]

13 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   True, but another reason is they feel they got cheated with Merrick Garland not even getting a hearing. You may blame the Democrats for wanting to do this going forward, but the nomination process has been overly politicized for a long time now, and it's hard to argue that McConnell wasn't the one responsible for taking it up a notch.

 

  My feeling is if Garland got the nod to replace Scalia, Gorsuch would have still been Trump's first appointment and then maybe RBG would have looked at retiring instead of hanging on and waiting for a Democrat. We might have Kavanaugh anyway and have the SC court in a better place too. Only speculation of course, but I don't think the politicization of the SC is a good thing. It might seem that way for conservatives ATM, but it won't when you get some activist judge in there one day with 51 votes. If that happens, you can blame that on McConnell too.

 

  Now we have justices staying on the SC past the natural time when they are ready to move on, hoping and waiting for a partisan replacement. That is not a good look for the highest court in the nation.

I am certain they feel cheated, but that is politics, and McConnell was only following the Biden Rule.  Now in the case of Trump's nominees, you can think that the Senate Dems and their activist media would have been more tolerant if Garland was seated, but I am here to tell you that not seating Garland has nothing to do with the rampant TDS in Washington.  Heck, even Hillary is back in the news again crying over the 2016 results.  This is what scares me with the Democrats, they are really starting to show that they will be willing to stop at nothing to win and maintain power.  You may say both sides do it, but for some reason the examples from the Left are much more evident.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-tries-to-delegitimize-the-2016-and-2018-election-results-again

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I am certain they feel cheated, but that is politics, and McConnell was only following the Biden Rule.  Now in the case of Trump's nominees, you can think that the Senate Dems and their activist media would have been more tolerant if Garland was seated, but I am here to tell you that not seating Garland has nothing to do with the rampant TDS in Washington.  Heck, even Hillary is back in the news again crying over the 2016 results.  This is what scares me with the Democrats, they are really starting to show that they will be willing to stop at nothing to win and maintain power.  You may say both sides do it, but for some reason the examples from the Left are much more evident.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-tries-to-delegitimize-the-2016-and-2018-election-results-again

 

     If I defraud a bunch of nursing home residents down the street, can I claim I am just following the Trump rule? Does that make it right?

[Dashinka 24,747]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     If I defraud a bunch of nursing home residents down the street, can I claim I am just following the Trump rule? Does that make it right?

"Trump Rule"?  Seems a stretch as I do not believe there is such a thing, but regardless, that is the Senate's prerogative based on the Constitution.  To my knowledge, the Constitution does not say the Senate has to "rubber stamp" a President's nominee

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

"Trump Rule"?  Seems a stretch as I do not believe there is such a thing, but regardless, that is the Senate's prerogative based on the Constitution.  To my knowledge, the Constitution does not say the Senate has to "rubber stamp" a President's nominee

 

  I was talking about a different "Trump rule" but perhaps I lost you. Let's just boil it down to two wrongs don't make a right. It is interesting that you tear Biden a new one every day, but you would try to defend McConnell's actions by saying Biden said so. 

 

  By the way, we have been over this, but I still wonder why you keep bringing up the "Biden Rule" as if it actually happened. I know you understand this. There is a "Biden opinion". There is no "rule" because nothing ever happened. Biden didn't stop a SC hearing. There was no actual supreme court vacancy at the time. There was no hearing to consider. McConnell was the one who actually did it. It's going to go down in history as the "McConnell rule". 

[Dashinka 24,747]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

  I was talking about a different "Trump rule" but perhaps I lost you. Let's just boil it down to two wrongs don't make a right. It is interesting that you tear Biden a new one every day, but you would try to defend McConnell's actions by saying Biden said so. 

 

  By the way, we have been over this, but I still wonder why you keep bringing up the "Biden Rule" as if it actually happened. I know you understand this. There is a "Biden opinion". There is no "rule" because nothing ever happened. Biden didn't stop a SC hearing. There was no actual supreme court vacancy at the time. There was no hearing to consider. McConnell was the one who actually did it. It's going to go down in history as the "McConnell rule". 

I am just using the coined term, but if it makes you feel better, I will say the 'Biden Suggestion'.  I am not tearing Biden a new one.  I actually happen to agree with his suggestion and that Senate would have been certainly within their constitutional prerogative to exercise it if necessary at the time.  The fact that McConnell actually did put it in play was just a thing of circumstances.  Now of course Joe said his suggestion was not political, but had there been a Democrat occupying the WH, I am sure we would have never heard him utter anything similar. 

 

Btw, when I search 'McConnell Rule', it says, see 'Biden Rule'.  Actually, I did see some Leftist editorial writer try to call it the 'McConnell Rule', but this person seemed off his rocker with TDS, but what else is new.