ADVERTISEMENT

Ruth Bader Ginsberg passes on at 87

Absolutely. I have no idea whether she’s lying or telling the truth. I’m only sharing the issue I have with memory testimony that's decades old in any forum
 
Last edited:
Republicans who claim to fear the radical left will take actions that only increase the possibility of a truly radical left. If the GOP rams this nomination through, it has zero argument against anything the Democrats might do if they grab all the levers of power. The GOP is playing an extreme partisan game and the result will be extreme partisanship on both sides. None of this is good for our country.
 
But I did form the opinion that the Repubs could have found someone better for the seat. Kavanaugh clearly had an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, a drinking problem, and a very tenuous grasp on the concept of honesty. I'm sure there was at least one other person on the Federalist Society list they shoved in Trump's pocket that didn't have that baggage.
Nominating Kavanaugh was part of the deal Kennedy struck with Trump for him to retire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Circlejoe
Republicans who claim to fear the radical left will take actions that only increase the possibility of a truly radical left. If the GOP rams this nomination through, it has zero argument against anything the Democrats might do if they grab all the levers of power. The GOP is playing an extreme partisan game and the result will be extreme partisanship on both sides. None of this is good for our country.

Agreed.... since it looks very plausible that Dems will control all levers of power in January. I fully expect them to blow up the Senate filibuster.
 
I hope they quit showing pictures of RBG, because my eyes are starting to hurt! UGLY
 
So it’s not so much the unborn fetus as it is controlling women’s sex lives? I’ve always suspected this was the reason most right wingers were anti choice. Thanks for saying it out loud.
People have the right to have as much sex and they want. Who is stopping them? But there are consequences to sexual activity run amok. What abortion advocates really want is to kill the child so that the parents don't have to take responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
We should expect the Ds to get their shit together and start acting like Rs. They will do things because they can. Heads GFY. Tails GFY.

Realistically, if the GOP's going to block them from doing anything meaningful in the Senate because you might have 2-3 GOP Senators max interested in negotiating on something seriously, there's no other choice.

There's going to be the normal mid-term backlash against the incumbent party, might as well actually do something really meaningful this time. There needs to be a big economic recovery act. Climate Change is something they need to get serious about, public option for health care, actually getting immigration reform done. Voting rights act, etc.

That's beyond putting a lot of the old norms into laws, campaign finance reform, minimum wage, criminal justice/police reform

And if you have a Supreme Court that's politicized full of conservatives and will block things that are clearly Constitutional if President Biden wants to do something and President Trump gets to run amuck, obviously that needs to get fixed as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
People have the right to have as much sex and they want. Who is stopping them? But there are consequences to sexual activity run amok. What abortion advocates really want is to kill the child so that the parents don't have to take responsibility.

The core argument is when a fetus is a person and honest people disagree. And every pro-choice person I know would prefer that abortions were rare, because they are difficult physically and emotionally. No matter your perspective, we should understand and respect the opposing views. Ultimately, this should be addressed in the legislature, not the courts.
 
Just a thought on the GOP's need to confirm a SCOTUS Justice in what would likely be record time...

 
Just a thought on the GOP's need to confirm a SCOTUS Justice in what would likely be record time...


As Schumer points out this is low (and REALLY STUPID) even for Trump...Is he trying to argue that RBG would want a moron like him nominating another Justice when we're so close to the election?

I'm beginning to think that he really is desperate to say or do anything to remain in office and out of jail. I think he really knows the SDNY will come after him full bore...

 
What abortion advocates really want is to kill the child so that the parents don't have to take responsibility.

What abortion advocates really want is to drastically reduce the number of abortions that take place in this country, using improved sex educuation and wide access to contraception as part of heath care.

IT WORKS.

Historically, since Roe v. Wade, the number of abortions go down over a Democratic POTUS's term and either stay the same or go up over a Republican POTUS's term.

So if you are antibortion, you ought to be voting for Joe Biden.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, we will see a dramaic shift toward botched illegal "coat hanger" abortions. Gee, that soulds great, right?

Instead, address the CAUSES of unwanted preganancy and help to PREVENT them. That is the Democrats plan.

Are you RIDIN' WITH BIDIN Now? :)
 
What abortion advocates really want is to drastically reduce the number of abortions that take place in this country, using improved sex educuation and wide access to contraception as part of heath care.

IT WORKS.

Historically, since Roe v. Wade, the number of abortions go down over a Democratic POTUS's term and either stay the same or go up over a Republican POTUS's term.

So if you are antibortion, you ought to be voting for Joe Biden.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, we will see a dramaic shift toward botched illegal "coat hanger" abortions. Gee, that soulds great, right?

Instead, address the CAUSES of unwanted preganancy and help to PREVENT them. That is the Democrats plan.

Are you RIDIN' WITH BIDIN Now? :)
The chances the Roe V Wade gets reversed with 9 conservative judges is zero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HooDatGuy
As Schumer points out this is low (and REALLY STUPID) even for Trump...Is he trying to argue that RBG would want a moron like him nominating another Justice when we're so close to the election?

I'm beginning to think that he really is desperate to say or do anything to remain in office and out of jail. I think he really knows the SDNY will come after him full bore...


RBG, may she rest in peace, doesn't get any say in who her successor is. We have a constitutional process for Supreme court nominations and dying wishes (real or contrived) aren't part of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
Absolutely. I have no idea whether she’s lying or telling the truth. I’m only sharing the issue I have of memory testimony that old in any forum
Can you recite the name of your first grade teacher (when your memory cells were only six years old)?

Your second grade teacher?

Your third grade teacher?

All three?

And don't fudge. How could you possibly remember such inconsequential, boring nonimportant facts about your elementary teachers that you never saw again, after decades of ruining your brain and reasoning ability with college weekends, law school, all-day legal seminars and other generic drinking and kids and phone calls from ex-wives?

And then, do you think you might possibly have have remembered if some adult had touched you inappropriately when you were a kid?

If, at this point, your weary brain can still remember the name of the first girl that touched you "like that," isn't it at least possible she might remember when she was touched inappropriately by someone else?

If you admit you remember things from 30-40 years ago, it would be interesting to hear your explanation why you don't think women can remember from that long ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
Can you recite the name of your first grade teacher (when your memory cells were only six years old)?

Your second grade teacher?

Your third grade teacher?

All three?

And don't fudge. How could you possibly remember such inconsequential, boring nonimportant facts about your elementary teachers that you never saw again, after decades of ruining your brain and reasoning ability with college weekends, law school, all-day legal seminars and other generic drinking and kids and phone calls from ex-wives?

And then, do you think you might possibly have have remembered if some adult had touched you inappropriately when you were a kid?

If, at this point, your weary brain can still remember the name of the first girl that touched you "like that," isn't it at least possible she might remember when she was touched inappropriately by someone else?

If you admit you remember things from 30-40 years ago, it would be interesting to hear your explanation why you don't think women can remember from that long ago.
read the article i quoted above. again there's a ton that goes into memory stuff. when i was early out of law school our firm represented the archdiocese of miami. we defended repressed memory, recovered memory cases. the point is that we don't know if she told the truth or not. what's more she may have absolutely 100 percent been telling the truth but it actually wasn't the truth. that's why it's critical to make a contemporaneous record. to come back thirty years, sad and as unfair as it may be to the victim, runs the risk of creating another victim who's falsely accused. and to belabor the point, it's why we as a society have a short sol for these claims
 
The article you quoted also consistently judges the Blasey-Ford/Kavenaugh testimonies from the point of view of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

Nobody is saying that Kavanaugh ought to do hard time.

As Goat said, The question was whether he ought to be affored the privilege of serving in one of the highest public offices that exist, potentially for a number of decades. Is he the best choice?
 
read the article i quoted above. again there's a ton that goes into memory stuff. when i was early out of law school our firm represented the archdiocese of miami. we defended repressed memory, recovered memory cases. the point is that we don't know if she told the truth or not. what's more she may have absolutely 100 percent been telling the truth but it actually wasn't the truth. that's why it's critical to make a contemporaneous record. to come back thirty years, sad and as unfair as it may be to the victim, runs the risk of creating another victim who's falsely accused. and to belabor the point, it's why we as a society have a short sol for these claims
You dodged the question Donny Jr.

What was the first name of the first girl that touched you "like that," and how long ago was that?

If you can remember, then so can she... except in your mind.
 
You dodged the question Donny Jr.

What was the first name of the first girl that touched you "like that," and how long ago was that?

If you can remember, then so can she... except in your mind.
Can't wait thirty years, chief. Not hard to understand. that's why most states carry a two year statute of limitations. and no i don't remember shit from thirty years ago. instead of asking stupid questions go back and read the article i posted from a female attorney handling sexual assault cases. But of course you believe her; thirty years later - because she represents the party you blindly support. as i said before, she might be lying, she might be telling the truth, she might be telling the truth and it's a lie. memory, repressed memory, recovered memory aren't simple matters - but people's reputations shouldn't hang in the balance of something brought up from over thirty years ago. have to memorialize stuff. make a record. that's what is fair to all.
 
Last edited:
You dodged the question Donny Jr.

What was the first name of the first girl that touched you "like that," and how long ago was that?

If you can remember, then so can she... except in your mind.
I don’t know if she’s telling the truth or not, but people do misremember things, which is different than forgetting them. Many studies to back it up. Check out Malcolm Gladwell’s Revisionist History episode on it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
I don’t know if she’s telling the truth or not, but people do misremember things, which is different than forgetting them. Many studies to back it up. Check out Malcolm Gladwell’s Revisionist History episode on it...
his questions are ridiculous
 
You dodged the question Donny Jr.

What was the first name of the first girl that touched you "like that," and how long ago was that?

If you can remember, then so can she... except in your mind.
Memories are crazy things. 9/11 was a traumatic day for nearly all of us - the kind of day when we're all certain that we'll never forget what we were doing or how we heard the news or what we did. Well, I found out this year on 9/11 that my wife and I have very different memories of how we first heard about it, if we watched it live or not (we lived in Hawaii) and all sorts of other little things we remember. We were together, but don't agree on the details. We're both certain our memory is correct and the truth is that neither of us probably correct.
 
Memories are crazy things. 9/11 was a traumatic day for nearly all of us - the kind of day when we're all certain that we'll never forget what we were doing or how we heard the news or what we did. Well, I found out this year on 9/11 that my wife and I have very different memories of how we first heard about it, if we watched it live or not (we lived in Hawaii) and all sorts of other little things we remember. We were together, but don't agree on the details. We're both certain our memory is correct and the truth is that neither of us probably correct.
You would have had to been up really early in the morning to see it live in Hawaii.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
You would have had to been up really early in the morning to see it live in Hawaii.
I know. I went to work early in my job and remember getting up a lot earlier than normal because we had some things scheduled at work and I needed to be there early for them. I remember flipping on the TV to see the news and saw the second WTC hit live. My wife says neither of us saw either WTC hit live. My memory is super clear of it, but she says hers is too. There's a lot more that we disagree on too, but that in particular is a biggie.
 
I know. I went to work early in my job and remember getting up a lot earlier than normal because we had some things scheduled at work and I needed to be there early for them. I remember flipping on the TV to see the news and saw the second WTC hit live. My wife says neither of us saw either WTC hit live. My memory is super clear of it, but she says hers is too. There's a lot more that we disagree on too, but that in particular is a biggie.
so creepy. ugh.
 
Not getting into this case, but overall reliability of first person eyewitness testimony is pretty bad. There are a lot of studies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
As Schumer points out this is low (and REALLY STUPID) even for Trump...Is he trying to argue that RBG would want a moron like him nominating another Justice when we're so close to the election?

I'm beginning to think that he really is desperate to say or do anything to remain in office and out of jail. I think he really knows the SDNY will come after him full bore...


You must be part of the Deep State Insider. Or you are some prognosticator in chief:



First of many investigations. Why he'll do anything to keep in power. Some presidents earn their millions giving talks or writing books.

Trump instead will be spending his millions in court. He may well be on his way to his 7th bankruptcy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid
Not getting into this case, but overall reliability of first person eyewitness testimony is pretty bad. There are a lot of studies.
This is true, although there is a big difference between eyewitness testimony and victim testimony. I'm curious how reliability differs between the two.

(One of McMurtry's links may have already answered this question; if so, I apologize.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
Memories are crazy things. 9/11 was a traumatic day for nearly all of us - the kind of day when we're all certain that we'll never forget what we were doing or how we heard the news or what we did. Well, I found out this year on 9/11 that my wife and I have very different memories of how we first heard about it, if we watched it live or not (we lived in Hawaii) and all sorts of other little things we remember. We were together, but don't agree on the details. We're both certain our memory is correct and the truth is that neither of us probably correct.

Happens all the time, particularly when the event has been seen so many times along the way.
 
Is there another path for Democrats? Below is the pertinent section of the Constitution. If they take back the Senate and Presidency, could they not just pass a law making the ACA and abortion beyond Supreme Court review? It appears any originalist would be forced to accept that law. Well, assuming I am not right and originalism is more than an argument of convenience.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.​
 
ADVERTISEMENT