Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:09 am
cradle,cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:26 amNice lecture. You still never answered my questions. Try again my friend. Even a lifelong republican should understand them.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:20 pmwhining again about "education" cradle?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:01 pmHey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly cardMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:43 pmHey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:10 amMD, the discussion regarding the credibility of Anita Hills testimony does revolve around a nagging little fact. Ms Hill did follow Judge Thomas when he changed jobs. It may not prove anything but.... is this something that a person who is creeped out by someone do? IMO it creates a reasonable doubt. There does seem to be an interesting coincidence that when a Republican POTUS nominates someone to the SCOTUS the Democrats always can find the skeletons in the closet to drag out.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:59 amThis particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.
But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.
Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.
I don't agree that Dems are the exclusive seekers of skeletons in closets. I'm pretty darn sure that my party is quite willing (and pretty much always has been) to point to any skeletons they find in any nominees to any office or judgeship.
This comes with the turf of being a nominee or political office seeker. Got serious skeletons, don't submit yourself to scrutiny.
And if you're appointing folks, look in their closet before announcing them!
BTW, I don't think Dems have less nor R's have less such skeletons in their closets. Pretty evenly distributed as far as history appears to tell us.
SCOTUS is a much smaller sample set, so hard to draw any particular conclusions about that, other than maybe that R's for the past 40 years or so have been more focused in their judicial appointments on political ideology than on other vetting. This has been an out in the open strategy objective of the GOP, for better or worse. Dems have been somewhat less focused on ideology though certainly not oblivious.
What we're seeing in the McConnell-Trump era goes way, way beyond prior periods in which the GOP controlled judicial appointments, the actual dismissal of prior experience as even of interest. I don't include that of the SCOTUS appointments as both have been qualified jurists. But the Merrick Garland debacle, that grossly naked power play by McConnell, puts a stain on the Court's natural composition.
Again, this stuff can be discussed and debated without name calling or race-baiting.Your making your point without an understanding of the context via the links I posted. Let us now respectfully discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute. I thought I had made my point clear, but you did not address it. Here is my take on this dispute. Ms Hill made her accusations against Justice Thomas. Why in the world does she then follow this degenerate creep when he moves to another job? That is it in a nutshell MD. If it makes sense to you I am more than willing to read your explanation as to why she would do so. I don't think a rational person follows a degenerate creep to his new job. That is just my own humble opinion.
If you had read the links I tied the accusations against Judge Thomas to even worse allegations against Lt. Governor Fairfax of Virginia who has kept his job in the face of "credible" accusations of rape. I will point out that all the usual suspects here, including you MD did not even find the time to consider the irony or pay any attention to what I was saying. You are all college educated successful business people. I would expect you are smart enough to understand where I was going. Nope, didn't happen, old cradle went on a racist rampage. Educate me here MD. Why does Lt. Governor Fairfax still have a job? Educate me even more. Why is it that no one on this forum seems to care about it?
Why do you think it matters whether you went to college or not in these discussions?
I don't have any issue with you wanting to debate with others the merits of Hill vs Thomas situation, nor you wanting to bring up the VA Lt. Gov case.
No issue at all. I'm not particularly interested in that debate...been there done that.
But yeah, the 'racist rampage' was way, way out of bounds.
I wasn't the person who said they believed Hill and doubted Thomas; I didn't enter into that discussion, just asked that you back off on all the racial hyperbole.
But ok, I'll play.
I did watch some of the Thomas hearings, including the Hill testimony. (and have since watched more) I confess that I, too, was concerned at the time about this being a left-wing attack on Thomas, and I was glad, even proud, that a GOP President had put up for nomination a qualified black jurist.
On the other hand, I found Hill's testimony disturbing. She did not come across as ditsy, addled, nor as politically motivated. Nope, she appeared to be telling the truth. Yes, it was troubling that she stuck with him as long as she did, but I knew via my wife that the environment for smart women competing to move up the ladder frequently required holding one's nose at the stupid and often inane behavior of the men in their environment, including in particular the men in the hierarchy ahead of them. So, I found it beyond plausible that she suffered through it for awhile.
As we've learned more about these issues in the years since, my view of the likelihood that Hill was indeed speaking the truth, and Thomas was not, has only grown.
On Fairfax, I don't live in VA and have paid far less attention to the facts of that situation. From the little I've read (many months ago) it disturbs me and I certainly wouldn't give him a pass because he's a Dem!
I don't want to assume out of the gate that all accusations by women are necessarily true, but I want them all to be taken seriously, regardless of political affiliation of any of the players.
But no, I don't think that putting Thomas and Fairfax into the same discussion just because both are black is appropriate. Both are men accused of bad behavior. Race is irrelevant to that question.
I will also confess that I find it nearly hilarious, though also truly sad and gross, that Trump supporters are nearly gleeful to point out that Dem men act badly, even more gleeful if it's a black man. Yet can't seem to face that Trump is a self-admitted assaulter of women, accused by 15+ women of assault or rape. "she's not his type", "she's too ugly"...
That may not include you, cradle. Hope not.
