Trump's Supreme Court nominee

I watched as much as I could take, but I have to say that if Kavanaugh believes his reputation has been destroyed, then he must surely withdraw from the nomination, or does he think that the qualities required of a Supreme Court justice are independent of a 'destroyed reputation'? The irony of this is that if Kavanaugh is not being judged on his legal history as a clerk/judge in his various official positions, it is because 90% of that record has been deliberately withheld by the Republicans on the Committee.

That he may be judged on something that happened when he was a 1980s brat is par for the course when Americans subject senior officials to public scrutiny, even if it now appears to be part of the new Civil War and is ugly and demeaning to all because of that. Yet the one person who has not been subject to the same scrutiny, to the extent that Americans still don't know if he even pays taxes, is the President, whose poor judgement is once again on display.

I don't know if it matters now, Kavanaugh strikes me as being in emotional terms, temperamentally unsuited to high office, and like his President may make decisions burning with resentment towards Democrats, 'the left', the Clintons and anyone else he has accused, rather than make decisions based on the law.

A sorry state of affairs for a country to be in, but Americans have opted for confrontation, accusation and demonization as a standard tactic, and you must either change the way you do your politics, or this war will continue and leave casualties in its wake, be they guilty or innocent.

In other words, f-f-f-fuck me, the Republicans stole another one.
Lyin' cocksuckers.

Kavanaugh strikes me as someone who has committed at least one sexual assault. While it is true that there is no longer legal liability for it, there's no reason it shouldn't be the subject of these hearings. Dr. Ford appeared to be someone dealing with demons, who carefully detailed a trauma she experienced and has discussed in therapy over many years. There's no reason Kavanaugh would not want it to be investigated by the FBI if he thinks it's a politically motivated sham, particularly given the fact that most women believe he did what he was accused of. If there was no basis for the accusation or it was a case of mistaken identity, an investigation would shed light on that.

Although I think the stuff he wrote in his yearbook shouldn't be disqualifying despite making him look like a chauvinist and a bully, he definitely lied about it, which speaks both to the seriousness with which he takes an oath and his credibility generally when speaking about matters that might incriminate him. How hard would it have been for him to say about the Renate comment "you know that was a hurtful and stupid thing to write. I really regret that." Instead he lied under oath by saying Renate Alumnus was intended to show his respect for her. It's not a provable lie but it's an obvious lie to anyone with an ounce of sense. Since when do Republicans not care about perjury? Didn't we have impeachment proceedings over that in recent memory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Kavanaugh strikes me as someone who has committed at least one sexual assault. While it is true that there is no longer legal liability for it....

---

In Montgomery County he can be tried for a sexual assault 30 years ago. Maybe they did that for all the Catholic Priests. Kavanaugh was slipping when Lindsey Graham burst in, he was smirking when asked about the Devil's Triangle, (some Republican Aide changed the Wiki definition from sex game to drinking game during the hearings, or so they say). Then when asked about Judge, he said "you'll have to ask him"
Every one of those Republicans knew Kavanaugh was lying, every one of them knows Kavanaugh will be a Republican Party Operative on the Supreme Court.

If you think the 11 Republicans have their head up their ass, you should listen to the Trump supporters that call into C-Span. They have sailed way past lying to total delusion. South Carolina is Trumpistan. The Good Ole Boys Club most definitely know which side of the bread has the butter, Kavanaugh's approval among voters is the exact same number that approve of Trump, lies and sexual antics are only sins when the Democrats do it.

Congratulations, Brett, I can hear you laughing.
I sure hope the truth climbs on you one day and fucks you in the ass. Over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

In Montgomery County he can be tried for a sexual assault 30 years ago.

---

That's interesting to hear. Perhaps there are other charges pending against Kavanaugh but wasn't Dr. Ford's accusation from more than thirty years ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

That's interesting to hear. Perhaps there are other charges pending against Kavanaugh but wasn't Dr. Ford's accusation from more than thirty years ago?

---

I think maybe you're right and I'm wrong again, attempted rape in Md in the swingin' eighties was just a misdemeanor. The Post just put an article out, but I'm not going to muddy the waters with facts, this is war. 21 senators hear the exact same evidence, the results? A joke.

With so much focus on the allegations of sexual assault, the curious comparison is with a man angry and pugnacious in his denunciation of the Democrats, yet supremely coy about answering questions that either relate to the legal issues on which he might be asked to form an opinion or reflect his political views. Thus he would not say if there are any limits to Presidential power in American law, and emails in which Kavanaugh discusses racial profiling have been withheld from the Committee as they are 'Confidential', plus -

Under questions from @SenBooker, Judge Kavanaugh refused to say it is morally or legally wrong to fire someone because they are gay. He refused to state his opinion on marriage equality. And he refused to state his role in the Bush WH effort to ban same sex marriage.

SenBlumenthal asked Judge Kavanaugh to stand up to President Trump’s outrageous attacks on the Judiciary. He refused.

Kamala Harris: I asked Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh whether he believes President Trump was correct, that ‘both sides’were to blame for Charlottesville. He refused to answer. This isn’t a difficult question. One side was wrong: the one with the torches and swastikas.

Feinstein:“BREAKING: Brett Kavanaugh was asked in 2004 about whether he was involved in the nomination of Bill Pryor. He said ‘I was not involved in handling his nomination’ Newly released emails show that's not true. Asked about how Pryor's interview went, he replied ‘CALL ME.
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo...Questions_.pdf

I would expect someone who wants to sit on the Supreme Court to make clear statements on issues of Rights and Responsibilities. But if the outrageous comments of Lindsay Graham are a guide, the law itself will be absent from the decision, as the BBC article suggested in a concise sentence:

A key difference in this battle is that Brett Kavanaugh has positioned himself not as jurist rising above the fray, but as a political combatant in the thick of the battle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45673702

On the other hand, you do have an open scrutiny for these important jobs, whereas in the UK we are told who is siitting on the Supreme Court after they have been appointed, by a commission drawn from a people who usually either know them directly or know someone who knows someone. Of then 10 judges on our Supreme Court (formed in 2005 from what used to be the Appellate Court of the House of Lords), at some stage in their careers, 8 studied law at either Oxford or Cambridge, which is unusual because at one time they were all male and all graduates of the same schools and universities, so after 600 years we are clearly more diverse than we used to be..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges...United_Kingdom

I think you pretty much nailed it there, Stavros, let's hope Mark Judge is as fragile as they say.
Wise men avoid sex and money, not because they're bad, because they're so good. mmmmm
Attachment 1096828Attachment 1096827

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

That's interesting to hear. Perhaps there are other charges pending against Kavanaugh but wasn't Dr. Ford's accusation from more than thirty years ago?

---

The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. That being said, it'd take on HELLUVA crusading States Attorney(especially in Montgomery County of all places) to bring up charges on this...especially during an election year where there's ALREADY one hell of a bitter fight over who the next County Executive is going to be! Also, the Georgetown Prep alumni & the overall Bethesda-Chevy Chase crowd(the neighborhood not the Montgomery County public high school--though they're pretty bad too!) has a LOT of pull, a VERY LONG reach, & they hold grudges!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goatman

The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. That being said, it'd take on HELLUVA crusading States Attorney(especially in Montgomery County of all places) to bring up charges on this...especially during an election year where there's ALREADY one hell of a bitter fight over who the next County Executive is going to be! Also, the Georgetown Prep alumni & the overall Bethesda-Chevy Chase crowd(the neighborhood not the Montgomery County public high school--though they're pretty bad too!) has a LOT of pull, a VERY LONG reach, & they hold grudges!

---

I didn't know that. I wonder if there have been any due process challenges for charges brought on very old assaults. I know there was at least one successful challenge to one prong of the rape shield statute in which an appeals courts held that it foreclosed an effective defense.

I read a paper a while back from the aclu where they said they opposed the abolition of statutes of limitations for sex crimes. The argument in favor of getting rid of a statute of limitations is that it allows victims to come forward years later given that they are often unable to report (fear of reprisal, shame, fear of character assassination). This makes particular sense in the case of minors who have been assaulted. In those cases one proposal was to toll the statute of limitations until they reached the age of majority.

The argument against getting rid of statutes of limitations is that it is difficult to defend a 30 year old accusation. If the defendant insists there was no relationship consensual or otherwise, it's difficult to establish an alibi. If they're claiming there's an ancient grudge, it's difficult to establish the motive for a false accusation. It's difficult to cross-examine the accuser effectively when most of the circumstances that are contemporaneous with the assault have been forgotten. However much I sympathize with victims I think it's probably a bad idea to charge cases that are decades old without physical evidence but maybe I'd change my mind if I read more about the subject.

I am not saying the allegations of sexual assault are not important, but it seems extraordiary to me that when Kavanaugh was asked questions on matters of law, which is why he is being interviewed, he declined to answer, but is it acceptable for someone nominated for the Supreme Court not to answer such questions?

Kavanaugh had no problem making political points and insulting Senator Klobuchar by answering her questions on his drinking habits by tossing the question back at her, which to me undermined his credibility as a Justice for the Court. I would suggest that Kavanaugh is in effect the Political Commissar for the President on the Court. His primary obligation will be to protect the President from any prosecution arising out of the Mueller Enquiry or any other revelation of criminal activity. I don't know if so junior a person will have much influence over the others who, one hopes, will resist the attempt to make the Supreme Court an obedient tool of the White House much as the judiciary in countries like Turkey, Egypt and Russia, so admired by this President, long ago set the law aside to protect the Top Dog with his snout in the public trough.

Is it the case that sitting members of the Court have no say in who joins them? Do they interview the candidate in private and forward their assessment to the Senate? It would be odd if the one body that had no say in the process was the Supreme Court itself. More pertinently, could they reject a candidate on legal grounds?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.2384ebf81273


If you asked the Supreme Court if they have any say in this the result would be a 4-4 tie.

If there is a difference between 'then and now', it is the fear that the retirement of Justice Kennedy, who was considered a 'swing voter', removes any neutrality on the Court, that it is either Republican or Democrat, and that votes on laws follow that party loyalty.

But this is not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, which is to asses in an objective manner the judicial consequences of political decisions using the Constitution as a a guide. Superficially, one could argue that both Neil Gorsuch and if chosen, Brett Javanaugh could abandon party loyalty if their judicial view compels them to do so, but few have the confidence in those two because of their existing record and their stated preferences.

It may be that the days when Warren Burger could start out in life opposed to abortion, but as a Supreme Court Justice was willing to defend Roe -v- Wade, and William Rehnquist, who opposed Miranda in the 1970s but came to see it as standard police procedure and voted to uphold it (much to Scalia's disgust) -that those days are over and the Court now reflects the bitter divisions in American society transposed to its Supreme Court.

But if that is the case, this is not really law at all, but politics, and Supreme Court Justices, instead of being intellectuals concerned to fine tune legislation, are just unelected politicians with loyalties to party and or individuals, and in some cases may even believe the Bible is more important than the Constitution. If Kavanaugh is chosen, it may mark the begining of, if not a crisis of confidence in the Court, a belief that its reform may be necessary if it is to survive as a branch of government not locked into partisan battles.

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1047135850197344256

Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath about when he heard about the Ramirez accusations. He said he had never heard about them before the New Yorker article was printed but was quoted in the New Yorker article discussing them.

Stavros, I think part of the problem is that originalism makes it difficult for a Judge to have an awakening. They believe they can divine the intent of the authors of the Constitution and are not trying to understand where each clause fits into a scheme of government. Part of the problem also dovetails with character and fitness. Does Kavanaugh seem like he has the personal qualities that would allow him to amend his views? Does he seem like he has the integrity to admit that the way he looked at a particular issue was wrong? I don't know what the solution to a bad judicial philosophy is. Or the types of personalities attracted to it.

Elena Kagan: 63 to 37 (2010)
Sonia Sotomayor: 68 to 31 (2009)
Samuel A. Alito Jr.: 58 to 42 (2006)
John G. Roberts Jr.: 78 to 22 (2005)
Stephen G. Breyer: 87 to 9 (1994)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 96 to 3 (1993)
Clarence Thomas: 52 to 48 (1991)
Anthony M. Kennedy: 97 to 0 (1988)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Stavros, I think part of the problem is that originalism makes it difficult for a Judge to have an awakening.

---

Originalism is something I think I understand, intellectually, but which at the same time seems illogical. I am asked to believe not only that liberty was an established concept in 1781, but that it is has not changed since 1781, in spite of the fact that since then the Constitution has been changed, or there would not have been so many amendments to it. If Scalia is an originalist, surely the Articles of Confederation are the source of all American law, and every subsequent amendment to it is, as it were, 'contestable' because they may be construed as being poltical rather than legal? If Amendment 2 is valid, why not the 14th? Or, why would an originalist accept either the 2nd or the 14th Amendment?

More to the point, and this is an agument in the link, if Scalia was an originalist, why is his 21st Century opinion more valid than a 19th century one?

One may argue about whether a right to be personally armed is so fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty that it should be applied to the states. But even a justice who thinks the right is fundamental should find it hard to conclude that the drafters of the 14th Amendment read their amendment this way, since in 1876, just ten years after the amendment’s passage, the Supreme Court held that portions of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, did not bind the states. One might think that particular Court had a better grasp on the 14th Amendment’s framers’ intent than any recent Court could. Yet Justice Scalia, the original originalist, cast a deciding vote in favor of incorporation, disregarding both the 1876 decision and its affirmation with respect to the Second Amendment issue in a later Supreme Court case.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...st-impossible/

It seems to me that the issue is similar to if not as profound as the 'Category Mistake' that Gilbert Ryle argues is the critical flaw in Cartesian philosphy. The mistake is to assume that someone in 2011 can interpret the intentions of a framer of the Constitution in 1781 when it is a matter of record that the same Article of Confederation was changed in 1791 (2nd Amendment) or 1868 (14th Amendment) -though I understand that Scalia, as well as the 'rapper' (?) Kanye West (I know next to nothing about this man) are 'unhappy' with the 14th.

In other words, far from being originalist, it seems Constitutional Amendments are matters of contemporary politics as remote from the date of their origin as the contestant is, be he or she alive in 1791, 1981, or 2011.

An article in the New Yorker allows me to relay what I think is a core point about the Supreme Court:

Anyone involved in constitutional law must confront the fact that the Supreme Court is no ordinary bench but the third branch of government, and the least democratic one. When the Court declares a law or other government action unconstitutional, it is substituting the judgment of nine élite lawyers for that of Congress and other elected officials. The problem is not academic. Scalia himself furnished a critical fifth vote in two cases that have had a marked effect on this year’s election: Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which allowed unlimited campaign spending by individuals and unions, and Shelby County v. Holder, which ended the Department of Justice’s supervision of Southern voting laws under the Voting Rights Act and inspired a wave of new laws restricting ballot access.

The same article makes a telling point with regard to same-sex marriage, inconceivabe in the 18th century, perfectly acceptable to a lot of people in the 21st, just as we are told slavery and racial discrimination were 'acceptable' at one time and indeed enshrined in law, but not at other times:

Constitutional law is always controversial because judges encounter gaps in giving meaning to terms like “liberty,” “equality,” or “arms.” They must fill those gaps by deciding whether constitutional guarantees of liberty and equality offer same-sex couples the right to marry, as the Court did last year, in a ruling that seemed simple decency to many observers, outraged others, and would never have occurred to the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...ry-originalism

Presidents nominate judges they think will support their policies, it is as simple as that. Perhaps this is why the most obvious flaw in the Oiginalist and Living Constitutionalist concepts of constitutional law, is that the key person in the process, the incumbent President does not care one way or the other what Jefferson or Madison thought was right for America, they are thinking of themselves and their legacy. More Id than ego.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Originalism is something I think I understand, intellectually, but which at the same time seems illogical.

---

The obvious illogicality is that it assumes implicitly that a small group of people 240 years ago represented the acme of thinking about constitutional matters. This view is not applied to other areas of law - eg common law is based on rules of precedent, but these rules have still allowed interpretations of the law to evolve over time in response to changing circumstances. I'm pretty sure there would be little support for originalism if it didn't happen to support conservative views on limiting the role of government.

I know these decisions are inherently political, but surely is must be possible to design a selection process that is less based on 'winner takes all' majoritarianism. There is nothing democratic about a passing majority being able to determine the court's composition for potentially decades ahead. Rather than choosing the person favoured by the majority, perhaps the principle should be to choose the person most acceptable to both sides.

One obvious change would be to have term limits as many other countries do rather than lifetime appointments. Another would be that all nominees must come from a list recommended by a bipartisan panel of judges. I'm not sure about requiring a super-majority for confirmation - in a hyper-partisan environment that might just lead to gridlock.

Of course, nothing will change as long as one party thinks that it benefits more from the status quo. Republicans will only accept the need for change if they go through a period where Democrats have the upper hand, which would in turn make the latter less likely to agree. Therein lies the dilemma.

The issue I have with originalism is that it fails to distinguish between the principles the founding fathers had in mind and the application of those principles. When those who drafted the 14th amendment included an equal protection clause it does not matter whether they had same sex marriage in mind. It doesn’t matter whether they think that same sex marriage was something the principle of equal protection should apply to had they considered it. What matters is what the principle is.

If equal protection prevents discrete groups of people from being treated arbitrarily under the law, there can be a shift in what we consider arbitrary. What equal protection represents is the protection of people’s right not to be singled out without good cause and subjected to a separate set of laws or excluded from our institutions.

If substantive due process ensures that the government cannot pass laws that deprive us of a liberty interest unless they have a compelling reason, there can be a shift in what Justices consider a liberty interest as well as what constitutes a compelling reason. A principle was ratified. The application of the principle or the particular intentions of the ratifiers was not ratified.

Does this idea of having a fluid document that responds to changing mores mean that nothing is fixed and Justices are free to make it up as they go along? No, because they have principles that guide them. They have a document that embodies those principles and they have a civilization made up of people who have gotten things wrong or failed to consider one thing or another and have an awakening on certain issues.

The example of the common law provided by filghy is a good one. Does the evolution of common law lead to improvisation that causes the resulting body of law to be completely unmoored to any principle or concept of justice? Or does it allow Judges to refine the principles when difficult fact patterns challenge them and make the contemporary law more intricate and refined as a result? I would say the latter.

I agree with both posts above. Whether or not the Supreme Court can be reformed is not something I can discuss, in the UK it took 600 years to reform the hghest court in the land, removing it from the House of Lords to a specially designated 'Supreme Court' but without reforming the practice of the top layer of justices appointing each other. I am going to assume that if the US does reform its Court, it won't take 600 years!

That the President can nominate may be something that can be changed; allowing sitting Justices on the Court to have their input another. An independent panel a third, and so on. It may be that precisely because so many Americans do not trust the current President, and that it is his poor judgement and personally rancid character that will prompt change.

That he has publicly mocked the woman who gave evidence at the Senate hearing will not surprise anyone, but still remains a stark example of the man's absence of moral depth and intelligence, as if insulting people will always be a plus in his playbook. Hard to believe that this display of venom and spite could be the work of 'God's chosen one', if this film is anything to go by-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...on-mark-taylor

For Trump a Supreme Court pick that gets 50 votes is better than a Judge who gets 90 votes.
I wouldn't bet money on how many votes Bart will get, unless I can get 3 points.

Courtesy of the BBC, I have watched Senator Susan Collins telling the Senate why she intends to support Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

It has been a powerful, articulate and compelling, even persuasive performance. And yet, listening to Senator Collins describe Kavanaugh with regard to his views on Roe -v- Wade, by implication Brown- v- Board of Education, her claim that Kavanaugh does not support the view that the President cannot be prosecuted be it in cases of criminal or civil law, that he has supported the law on same-sex marriage, and that in 96% of cases when he was able to, that Kavanaugh voted the same way as Merrick Garland, one is left with two stunning questions:

1) Why was Merrick Garland denied a seat on the Supreme Court, and
2) Why was Brett Kavanaugh nominated by a President who wants the Supreme Court to scrap the very laws that Senator Collins claims that he supports?

Senator Collins ended her assessment with the argument divisions in US society might be healed by the appointment of Kavanaugh, but seems to me to be out of touch with the manner in which those divisions affect real Americans, every day, be they divisions which mean Americans are denied the right to vote, divisions which mean that in spite of Roe -v- Wade many American women find their state has re-defined abortion to make it all but impossibe in that state, and crude situations in which a law enforcement office shoots dead an un-armed man, who just happens at the time to be Black.

She claims to be a supporter of the reality of Prof. Ford's claims of sexual assault, yet also denied that Ford has remembered correcly what she thinks happened: which is rather like saying, well, I guess you were assaulted, but not by my guy, at no point raising what should be the most obvious next question: suppose Kavanaugh and his mates are lying? Indeed, at no point did Senator Collins even hint that on any question posed to him by the Judiciary Committe, did Kavanagh tell a lie.

She also sought to exonerate him of the claims of bias against Bill and Hiillary Clinton by citing procedure at the time of the Whitewater Investigations -which any young and ambitious lawyer knows must be respected in the development of a career- with no regard to Kavanaugh's animosity toward Bill Clinton as a man or his position as President and whether or not he thinks it was right to impeach Clinton either because he lied to a Grand Jury, or because he was opposed to Clinton as a Democrat, or both, let alone the incendiary remarks he made to the Senate Committee.

In short, Collins gave a master class in the presentation of a decent candidate where all the rough edges have been smoothed to the point where I wondered if Brett Kavanaugh is in reality a liberal whose dedication to the rule of law would be part of a process whereby the US finds ways of coming together as a nation, protected by the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Then I reminded myself that Senaor Collins is not a liberal, that the President is not a liberal, that the entire purpose of the current Administration is to trash everything that happened in the recent past so that, as a Republican said recently, 'it will be as if Obama never happened'

Susan Collins, the consummate politician, offering diamonds that turn to shit as soon as you touch them.

One of the big puzzles about the past 2 years is why Republicans who have clearly had major reservations about Trump have been so ready to roll over and toe the party line. In the past party discipline in the US was fairly weak and even Presidents whose party had majorities in Congress often had trouble getting their way.

Obviously a big part of the answer is that 85-90% of Republican voters have continued to approve of Trump regardless of what he has said and done. Still it's hard to understand why Trump critics have been so reluctant to use their bargaining position to back up their words with action, especially those like Flake and Corker who are not running again. I'm not just talking about the Kavanaugh nomination, but also things like protecting the Mueller inquiry and resisting protectionism.

I am not an American and I don't live there, so there are always going to be nuances that I just don't get, but from where I am I think those Repubicans who detest their President for that reason regard him with contempt, but look over their shoulders at the voters, which is why I think some are concerned at their potential losses in the mid-terms though at the moment it does not look like the Senate will go blue. It presents them with a dilemma as they are clearly using an incompetent fool to drive their policies through with particular focus on tax cuts.
The Supreme Court decision on Kavanaugh becomes an additional boost if Kavanaugh confirms Court decisions to leave States alone when they suppress voter rolls, deny Americans the right to register through legal schemes, pollute the environment, and impose such strict limits on terms as to make abortion impossible at the same time as retaining its legality. It is this use of state law to undermine federal law that establishes the fault-lines of the new Civil War taking place in the USA.

Rather than seeing this as a retreat behind state lines, it could be seen as an advance for a sub-nationalist enterprise in which individual states which may already have a long-established political culture, for example one derived from their Confederate past, resist and reject the authority of Congress to -as they see it- impose their policies on them. It is worth noting that states which voted for the President and approve of his attacks on political correctness, muti-culturalism and issues around women's rights, LGBT rights -indeed what they see as a 'rights culture' -are using States Rights to consolidate their alternative policies.

In practical effect, the suppression of the vote because it affects Black Americans more than any other single identifiable social group, returns those former Confederate states to the condition they were in when Slavery was legal -a state in which Black people can work, and even get paid, but in which they have no rights to participate in the political process, and states in which Black children as young as 12 can be imprisoned for life in an adult prison with no hope of parole for a minimum of 40 years. Segregation is real, it is happening, it is working: millions of Black Americans have been removed from public America, to the benefit of incumbemt Republicans. It is as if they do not exist.

This is not just revenge on America for putting a Black man in the White House, it is an attempt to make positive the argument that there is only one True America, and that there is no place in it for Jews, Asians, Latinos, or Africans, who were never voluntary immigrants anyway. In religious terms it outcasts anyone who is not a Christian, but may also include Roman Catholics, traditionally regarded by some Americans as natural born traitors because they believe that ultimately their Pope is more important than their Constitution.

That some of these 'True Americans' believe their President was sent to them by God further exposes fault-lines among those Americans who have no religion and those who think you cannot be American without it. The deeper problem is that without voter suppression, many Congressional Districts that return Republicans would be Democrat, just as the Demographic changes in the US tend to support the view that by 2050 or 2100 the majority of Americans will not represent the 'historic' 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant' cohort that allegedly created the USA, 'from Jamestown to today'.

From this perspective, the phenomenon we saw in 2016 may have been the last gasp of a declining component of the American project, Bannon and the alt-right desperate to enforce as much change as they can to slow the process through an end to immigration, but insisting on the right of states to go their own way to both undermine the authority of Washington DC, and in time, to end it altogether.

For at some point in the future, do not current trends suggest that once again, when something happens or the time is right, those old Confederate States will secede from the Union again? It would not be legal, or constitutional, but after all many of the new Confederates were in such despair when Obama was elected, and re-elected, that they realised they have to change. Using state law at the moment is their chosen weapon, in the future, more traditional weapons may be in their hands, determined to reclaim their states 'for God, Family and Country' -only that country will no longer be the USA.

One of my oldest friends who lived and studied in the US made the chilling remark a while ago -'If the USA wants to tear itself to shreds, let it. I no longer care'. The warning signs have been there since the 1980s, but can American rescue itself from its own demons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I am not an American and I don't live there, so there are always going to be nuances that I just don't get, but from where I am I think those Repubicans who detest their President for that reason regard him with contempt, but look over their shoulders at the voters, which is why I think some are concerned at their potential losses in the mid-terms though at the moment it does not look like the Senate will go blue. It presents them with a dilemma as they are clearly using an incompetent fool to drive their policies through with particular focus on tax cuts.
The Supreme Court decision on Kavanaugh becomes an additional boost if Kavanaugh confirms Court decisions to leave States alone when they suppress voter rolls, deny Americans the right to register through legal schemes, pollute the environment, and impose such strict limits on terms as to make abortion impossible at the same time as retaining its legality. It is this use of state law to undermine federal law that establishes the fault-lines of the new Civil War taking place in the USA.

Rather than seeing this as a retreat behind state lines, it could be seen as an advance for a sub-nationalist enterprise in which individual states which may already have a long-established political culture, for example one derived from their Confederate past, resist and reject the authority of Congress to -as they see it- impose their policies on them. It is worth noting that states which voted for the President and approve of his attacks on political correctness, muti-culturalism and issues around women's rights, LGBT rights -indeed what they see as a 'rights culture' -are using States Rights to consolidate their alternative policies.

In practical effect, the suppression of the vote because it affects Black Americans more than any other single identifiable social group, returns those former Confederate states to the condition they were in when Slavery was legal -a state in which Black people can work, and even get paid, but in which they have no rights to participate in the political process, and states in which Black children as young as 12 can be imprisoned for life in an adult prison with no hope of parole for a minimum of 40 years. Segregation is real, it is happening, it is working: millions of Black Americans have been removed from public America, to the benefit of incumbemt Republicans. It is as if they do not exist.

This is not just revenge on America for putting a Black man in the White House, it is an attempt to make positive the argument that there is only one True America, and that there is no place in it for Jews, Asians, Latinos, or Africans, who were never voluntary immigrants anyway. In religious terms it outcasts anyone who is not a Christian, but may also include Roman Catholics, traditionally regarded by some Americans as natural born traitors because they believe that ultimately their Pope is more important than their Constitution.

That some of these 'True Americans' believe their President was sent to them by God further exposes fault-lines among those Americans who have no religion and those who think you cannot be American without it. The deeper problem is that without voter suppression, many Congressional Districts that return Republicans would be Democrat, just as the Demographic changes in the US tend to support the view that by 2050 or 2100 the majority of Americans will not represent the 'historic' 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant' cohort that allegedly created the USA, 'from Jamestown to today'.

From this perspective, the phenomenon we saw in 2016 may have been the last gasp of a declining component of the American project, Bannon and the alt-right desperate to enforce as much change as they can to slow the process through an end to immigration, but insisting on the right of states to go their own way to both undermine the authority of Washington DC, and in time, to end it altogether.

For at some point in the future, do not current trends suggest that once again, when something happens or the time is right, those old Confederate States will secede from the Union again? It would not be legal, or constitutional, but after all many of the new Confederates were in such despair when Obama was elected, and re-elected, that they realised they have to change. Using state law at the moment is their chosen weapon, in the future, more traditional weapons may be in their hands, determined to reclaim their states 'for God, Family and Country' -only that country will no longer be the USA.

One of my oldest friends who lived and studied in the US made the chilling remark a while ago -'If the USA wants to tear itself to shreds, let it. I no longer care'. The warning signs have been there since the 1980s, but can American rescue itself from its own demons?

---

You worry too much about Trump. Live life and enjoy the fresh air. Stop following that fear mongering liberal narrative and worry about your own country.. We're doing fine. Latina here and love the guy. The more trash talk you place on my president, the more we love him.. so want to be counter productive? Keep bitching about him. Saturday's justice supreme Court confirmation will be bliss <3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

You worry too much about Trump. Live life and enjoy the fresh air. Stop following that fear mongering liberal narrative and worry about your own country.. We're doing fine. Latina here and love the guy. The more trash talk you place on my president, the more we love him.. so want to be counter productive? Keep bitching about him. Saturday's justice supreme Court confirmation will be bliss <3

---

I'll probably regret asking this, but why??? How exactly do you expect to benefit from Trumpism? You are non-white, non-heterosexual, not rich, and (I assume) not a religious nut or a gun nut. You live in New York, not the manufacturing rust belt.

Are you one of those people like Kanye West who seem to get great satisfaction out of being a contrarian? At least Kanye is rich. Liking someone just because others don't like him does not seem very logical.

Also, you suggested in another post that you were a libertarian. You don't seen any inconsistency in supporting a president who can't hide his admiration for dictators and would clearly like to be one if he could? This is a man who has suggested many times that the power of the state should be used to punish his opponents. How is that consistent with libertarian philosophy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

You worry too much about Trump. Live life and enjoy the fresh air. Stop following that fear mongering liberal narrative and worry about your own country.. We're doing fine. Latina here and love the guy. The more trash talk you place on my president, the more we love him.. so want to be counter productive? Keep bitching about him. Saturday's justice supreme Court confirmation will be bliss <3

---

Oh I love you Sasha, I love you :p
Don't let them drive you in to a mental institution though, you're better than that.

Because I know Trump is not what the liberal media claims he is. The dude was born and is a New Yorker. He's centrist, not Republican. He's not part of the political establishment and can tell both parties are outraged because he wasn't meant to be elected by the political establishment. We got tired of the status quo and especially of Hillary Clinton's failure as secretary of state (her laughing at Gaddafi when he died did it for me..). My biggest worry was her stance on open borders and ignoring how Europe was suffering with random terror attacks from radical islamist terrorists at the time ISIS was losing ground in Syria and Iraq. Me living in NYC, my biggest fear is getting caught in a random attack on my way to work or coming back home. Trump strong stance on temporarily halting refugees from terror prone countries (which the media miscategorized "Muslim ban") with governments either collapsed or brink of collapse (Syria) just to keep us safer. Gotta love the way he says it like it is without worrying about political correctness. I got tired of the liberals forcing us to fall aligned with their way of thinking and what really pissed me off is how they're treating anyone wearing a damn MAGA hat - attacking those who disagrees with them and not respecting anyones right to think differently.

The good:
First few weeks of presidency, he blocked CIA funding and arming rebel groups that we had no idea were either our friends or foe.

He placed strict ban and temporary halted refugees from countries where there's an active war with Al-queda, ISIS, Hezbollah and Taliban

Tax cuts - gotta love seeing an extra $100 on my paycheck. I see the company I'm working in constantly hiring and interviewing new people on a weekly basis. Didn't see this much during previous president administration. If Trump tax plan was so horrible, why is the economy doing so damn good that the federal reserve increased interested the 3rd time within 2 years into Trump's presidency? We're doing fine.

His tough stance on North Korea and pressing China against the rogue regime. Even South Korean president gave credit to Trump for having the opportunity to have peace talks with Kim Jong Un. Obama did terrible with his "strategic patience" and his handling during North Korea provocation against South Korea and Japan. He allowed the Kim regime to create bombs of stronger yields and finally create their first hydrogen bomb.

NAFTA has been renegotiated which both Democrats and Republicans have praised. It's about damn time and of course the media ignores it because it doesn't fit their anti-Trump narrative

Enforcing immigration laws. Not too sure why the liberal media keeps blurring the lines of "immigration" and "illegal immigrants". Trump has nothing against those entering the country legally. And the whole ripping children away from parents at the border, it's always been like this and why is it a problem now? If a US citizen commits a crime, do they get separated from their children? Of course they do! But we should do it the liberal way - let's keep families together and place children in prison with us! ��

The bad:
Ending Net neutrality. This was something I felt strongly against when he announced it and when the FCC pulled the plug on. But surprisingly, we're still alive lol

Attempting to scrap Obamacare with NO replacement. This whole process was sloppy and completely utter failure

The wall - this is such a stupid idea of him trying to push for it. His attempt to have US tax payers pay for it makes it even worse. I wish he would've used "the wall" as a metaphor to beef up border security. He should know damn well that the wall is a such an antiquated method of border security and instead, should heavily invest tech to secure it.

On Russia - I honestly believe if Hillary and Bernie were at the final race of presidency, Russia still would had meddled and attacked Hillary since he blamed her for the protest in St. Petersburg, Russia in 2010~2011, during the time other countries "uprising" protests. But Trump's weak stance against Putin is making it look more likely they colluded, which I don't believe they did.

And just as an FYI, I'm neither a republican or Democrat (hint hint.. libertarian here) but love the job he's doing so far. Nothing wrong with America first. Sorry for any typos.. typed this all up on my phone

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/u...naugh-fbi.html
The last thing you want in a Judge is prejudice, the Republicans bought a Judge. Trumpettes are cool with that.

Phew, I hope that clears things up regarding my views. Sravros, figly and that other guy Buttslinger dude should know that Sasha isn't your typical Trump loving redneck airhead lol

OK Sasha, I can't find it on the net, but there was a study that said above all else Republican Voters want their STATUS back. They are well aware that in the Media they are depicted as under-educated hicks. I've never figured out how you can watch Grapes of Wrath or To Kill a Mockingbird and still stand on the wrong side of History. And don't call me dude, …...DUDE!!! ha ha ..Kavanaugh would LOVE you, once he understood you, right? WRONG.
All my relatives live in the Deep South, I love all of them. There is a reason for everything, and I hope we, as a Nation, get down to it. Warts and all.

Doesn't matter what the media states. I know a bunch of uneducated liberals or ovely emotional liberals with useless college degrees who are Democrats too. What's your point? My siblings and I are either IT engineers, aeronautical engineers or studying in Colombia University .. I guess we're the lowest of the barrel when it comes to education right? Everything going wrong with the Democrats is because they keep shooting themselves in the foot with their desperate tactics.

Tonight, you're right. You scored a big Victory today, Sweetheart, Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

Because I know Trump is not what the liberal media claims he is. The dude was born and is a New Yorker. He's centrist, not Republican.

---

Better than expected but still a masterpiece of selectivity. Trump a centrist - you must be kidding. The Trump administration is largely standard Republicanism with extra nastiness. The only real point of differentiation is the America first stuff. That hardly makes it centrist, just a different strand of right-wing politics.

I'm not going to address every point because there's only so much time you should spend arguing with people on the internet, but here's a few.

Trump says it like it is - No, he says it like it ain't. Independent fact checkers have found that around 70% of statements by Trump are mostly or completely false. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ That compares to around 25% for Obama.

Tax cuts - The tax cuts primarily benefit very rich people - one analysis found that 83% of the benefits would go to the top 1%. Most people's taxes will go up again from 2026 as many of the tax cuts expire.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-policy-center
https://taxfoundation.org/the-distri...e-next-decade/
Also, the tax cuts are mostly financed by borrowing. Somebody will have to pay for that eventually, and if Republicans are in charge you can bet it won't be the rich.

Economy - the US economy is doing well, but it was doing well under Obama once the financial crisis he inherited was out of the way. Employment is increasing by around 200,000 per month, but it's been increasing at around that rate since 2011. If you don't believe me you can check it on this site. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...loyment-change
Also, it's not doing as well as the headline numbers would suggest. The share of the working age population in jobs is still lower than in the 2000s, and median wages/incomes have not increased a lot because most of the gains are going to the very rich. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ing-an-economy

North Korea - The vague agreement made at the summit was no more than what North Korea had agree to previous times, which they obviously didn't honour. Even Mike Pompeo says that they've done little in the way of concrete steps toward disarmament. Yet Trump is carrying on as if the problem is solved and singing the praise of his new friend Kim Jong-Un - hardly a tough stance. And how much cooperation do you expect from China now he's launched a trade war against them?

Immigration - It's simply untrue to say that Trump has nothing against legal immigration. They have made it harder to get working visas even though the unemployment rate is very low so the economy actually needs more workers. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/b...h1b-visas.html They are also making it harder for legal immigrants to become US citizens. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/b...h1b-visas.html Refugee visas have been cut severely and Trump backed a bill in 2017 to cut legal immigration by half.

Don't think that I didn't notice that you avoided the question about how libertarianism can be consistent with supporting a president with obvious authoritarian tendencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

OK Sasha, I can't find it on the net, but there was a study that said above all else Republican Voters want their STATUS back.

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...upport/558674/
https://www.economist.com/democracy-...g-their-status

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

Phew, I hope that clears things up regarding my views. Sravros, figly and that other guy Buttslinger dude should know that Sasha isn't your typical Trump loving redneck airhead lol

---

Sasha, I appreciate you taking the time to air your views and draw up a list of pros and cons with regard to the President and understand as a libertarian why you see little benefit in goverment as it is today, even though it is now the primary source of employment for most Americas, and that without Federal and State contracrs, the US economy would collapse.
I can't say I agree with you because it is obvious that I do not, but I do think that your perspective seems to be shaped by hostility to the two party system and the candidates they choose who do not inspire you -you may even believe they are responsible for all that you think has gone wrong with the USA in recent years- but that this allows you to either ignore, or just not focus on the specific factors that make this President unique, because he is so lacking in any of the qualities Americans -indeed, anyone anywhere in the world- should expect from their leaders.

So I understand how you may not like the man, but support the changes he is trying to make, but would suggest that not only are those changes damaging the USA as a country, the fact is that he doesn't care about them. This is a man with no interest in the world in which he lives, he is not even interested in his own country, being ignorant and selfish and utterly without empathy for Americans he has openly abused and insulted, be they women, black or disabled.

The simple fact is that the two most important things in the President's life are his ego, and his money. Nothing else comes close, least of all the USA.

Rather than go through the list you provided -your dismissal of the Russian link is worthy of a thread all of its own- I will remark on but one-

He placed strict ban and temporary halted refugees from countries where there's an active war with Al-queda, ISIS, Hezbollah and Taliban

First of all, the ban did not just affect refugees but a wider group of people including legitimate immigrants, and people who have been denied entry to the USA because, for example, they have visited Iran.

It is no accident that Saudi Arabia is not on the list, because the President has financial investments in the Kingdom, and has been the recipient of millions of Saudi dollars in real estate transactions in the USA, all of it in complete disregard of the direct and indirect role that Saudi Arabia as played in the development of international terrorism since the 1980s, because the money is all that matters.

Indeed, the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was the consequence of a sequence of domestic terrorist attacks that began in 1902 with ibn Saud's 'Brotherhood' attacking his rivals, the Rashidi in Riyadh, and ended in 1925 with an attack on Mecca which ended the control of Mecca and Madina by the Hashemites that dated back to Muhammad himself, and that destroyed historic buildings, something the Saudis have continued to do right through to the present day.

If you want to trace the modern history of Islamic terrorism, it starts with the Brotherhood in Arabia in 1902, and continues through their attacks on the Hashemites in Jordan in 1921 and continues today with Saudi Arabia's support for the Taliban, which it has been doing since it was formed in Pakistan in 1994. And just in case you don't get it, the organization of armed militias which resulted in the formation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda began with the USA and Saudi Arabia supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan when it was fighting the USSR there. The roots of the terror that slaughered thousands of Americans on 9/11 lie with you and your choice of allies.
You creamed their ass, they fucked yours.

The majority of the hi-jackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia; the Kingdom was directly involved in the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, the civil wars in Syria and Iraq, and has been, though the funding of Madrasas in that part of the world as well as in Europe a major source of extremism which produces literature that demonizes Muslims, such as the Shi'a and Sufi, as well as broadcasting its sickening loathing of Jews.

So when you applaud crackdowns on the extremists you think have now been denied entry to the USA, ask why it is that the friends and relatives of the 9/11 Hi-jackers can come and go whenever they like, just as the couple from San Bernardino who murdered Americans in 2015 were free to come and go from a place that has no elected government, where teenagers are flogged to within an inch of their lives, and innocent people beheaded in public every week.

If the support for Saudi Arabia proves that you are supporting a policy that is based on hypocrisy is not enough, look up the record of the Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq and after counting the dead Americans ask why it is that Rudolph Giuliani and John Bolton regularly appear on their platforms.

It is your President who benefits, not the USA. It is his obsession with his ego and his money that enables him to dance with dictators, and piss on his allies because they don't adore him, and don't give him millions of dollars. The USA does not benefit from this because your friends are turning away, because the USA has become not just an unreliable ally, but an untrustworthy ally, and the President doesn't care. Suppose one day you need your friends but we are not there for you?

The USA has for so long survived and prospered because it has a large and diverse internal market, and for all I know you can exist without trading with China or India, by erecting tariff walls with the EU, by treating Canada and Mexico as if they were silly children. But you are being led by a gambler, a man who has taken risks with other people's money and more often than not, failed to deliver.

You are now gambling with a Casino President who has put all your money on one bet, that alone is scary. That he is delivering independence to fomer confederate states in the long term may in fact destroy the USA as it once was, but perhaps you think it is a bet worthy of your wealth and security. In the end, you are more likely to be destoyed from within than by an external enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...upport/558674/
https://www.economist.com/democracy-...g-their-status

---

Good Hunting Filghy, it's a damn shame we have to trash the World to make Trump's base feel good about themselves. My sense of humor may not recover from this never ending river of bullshit.
Election Day can't get here soon enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

Oh I love you Sasha, I love you :p
Don't let them drive you in to a mental institution though, you're better than that.

---

"Poor old Collin....he's probably on his way to the "funny farm" which is where most people
end up who've had dealings with you fruit bats."
"I'd stay off this section if I were you Vex ; for your own sanity, that other cunt is close to
coming under lock & key by the Sanity Police."

If you are going to take up trolling again can you at least have the wit to come up with some new lines? How about something like this one? I've no idea how cancer could prop up a flyover, but it has a nice surreal touch.

"Your sort are a type of fucking cancer, the sort of rubbish that should be propping up
flyovers somewhere."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CD_Sasha

Doesn't matter what the media states. I know a bunch of uneducated liberals or ovely emotional liberals with useless college degrees who are Democrats too. What's your point? My siblings and I are either IT engineers, aeronautical engineers or studying in Colombia University .. I guess we're the lowest of the barrel when it comes to education right? Everything going wrong with the Democrats is because they keep shooting themselves in the foot with their desperate tactics.

---

Have a drink on me Sasha, saw the news this morning, made me smile ;)

If one is a true defender of violence against women, then 'that one' should apologize to and/or support those women that accused Bill Clinton of rape and sexual harassment. Those women were treated like shit and ostracized.