Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Leonhard]

To be fair, you are not the only one who has suddenly expressed this. I've seen some pundits on TV, some of whom have been active for a number of decades, all of a sudden start voicing this concern, coincidentally starting right after Trump was elected. In fact a couple of them were positively giddy when the Democrats had a lock on both the presidency but Congress as well (a large majority in the House and a veto-proof majority in the Senate) for a couple years after Obama was elected. No talk of a need for balance then.

If the majority of the US populace was conservative, I wouldn't mind the supreme court, house and senate reflecting that. But its when there's a 50-50 even mix that I get concerned for the US. A lot of recent decisions have come down to narrow margins, and they haven't been minor decisions. This doesn't look healthy in the long run.

[Leonhard]

In the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a bill to expand the Supreme Court beyond nine justices because he was tired of them striking down his legislation. (Obviously this did not pass, and indeed it proved to be an unpopular proposal.)

If the Supreme Court effectively is a second government, then stuffing it is a bit of a power grab.

[rogue06]

In the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a bill to expand the Supreme Court beyond nine justices because he was tired of them striking down his legislation. (Obviously this did not pass, and indeed it proved to be an unpopular proposal.)

But in many ways it worked since the court became markedly less hostile to some of his proposals.

[rogue06]

If the Supreme Court effectively is a second government, then stuffing it is a bit of a power grab.

The idea that it (or the judiciary in general) is some sort of "second government" is a misnomer. It is no more so than the other two branches of goverment -- all of which have checks and balances. Strangely, for the last few decades, the legislative branch (Congress) has been increasingly ceding many of their traditional powers to the executive branch (presidency) leading to legitimate concerns about what has been termed the "Imperial Presidency."

[Leonhard]

The idea that it (or the judiciary in general) is some sort of "second government" is a misnomer. It is no more so than the other two branches of goverment -- all of which have checks and balances. Strangely, for the last few decades, the legislative branch (Congress) has been increasingly ceding many of their traditional powers to the executive branch (presidency) leading to legitimate concerns about what has been termed the "Imperial Presidency."

If the Supreme Court makes a decision, is there something that can overrule them?

Edit: Short of a constitutional ammendment of course.

[JimL]

You're the spokesman of the group now, are ya, Jimmy? To those of us who are skeptical, what evidence is there that "she is afraid enough of flying to have panic attacks and to require medication to do it."

Her testimony to congress under oath. She hasn't given any reason for anyone to suspect her of lying, and every congressman and congresswoman on the committee has said as much, unlike Kavanaugh himself, who being considered for a seat on the highest court in the land, we all know to have lied under oath to Congress. Lying to Congress, particularly when under oath, is in itself disqualifying for the lifetime appointment to a SC Justice. If Republicans really wanted proof, then they should have let the FBI investigate/question both Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh, but the white House didn't allow them to do that. Gee, I wonder what the White House was afraid of.

[rogue06]

If the Supreme Court makes a decision, is there something that can overrule them?

Edit: Short of a constitutional ammendment of course.

Rewriting the law so that it is constitutional. There have been a number of decisions where the court has urged Congress to pass a new law or rescind an old one.

[Terraceth]

But in many ways it worked since the court became markedly less hostile to some of his proposals.

That's far less than clear. The classic telling of the story is that Roosevelt announced his court packing plan, which made Owen Roberts (considered to be a "swing vote") change his vote in the West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish decision, which caused Roosevelt to change his mind. The problem is that this decision was made before Roosevelt made public his plans (things are decided considerably before they are released), and the claim that Roosevelt's court-packing attempt played a role in the decision were denied by multiple justices, including Roberts himself.

Then the whole thing became moot anyway because one of the justices who reliably voted against Roosevelt's proposals, Willis van Devantar, retired soon afterwards. Actually, Roosevelt essentially packed the courts with no help from a court-packing bill, as he was able to nominate a whopping 9 justices during his presidency.

[Terraceth]

If the Supreme Court makes a decision, is there something that can overrule them?

Edit: Short of a constitutional ammendment of course.

Sure. A subsequent Supreme Court decision can overrule it.

[NorrinRadd]

Sure. A subsequent Supreme Court decision can overrule it.

But that depends on a SCOTUS comprising Justices who prioritize the Constitution above precedent. It is questionable whether Kavanaugh, e.g., does so.

[Tassman]

Yes, there are many phony extreme leftist anti-Christian bigots like you. Tell me something I don't know.

[Cow Poke]

But you are, so.... (And, actually, I spelled 'phony' correctly - you'd do better to use the quote function)

to acknowledge the demonstrable fact that if it were not for the Evangelicals Trump would not be in power.

But then you always go beyond fact to nutty statements....

Evangelicals put him there presumably because he represents Evangelical values.

And you come up with this nonsense because you're a phony anti-Christian bigot, Tass. Own it!

[Tassman]

But you are, so.... (And, actually, I spelled 'phony' correctly - you'd do better to use the quote function)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...english/phoney

But then you always go beyond fact to nutty statements....

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/...idency-support

And you come up with this nonsense because you're a phony anti-Christian bigot, Tass. Own it!

One can understand the embarrassment of your own opportunistic hypocrisy.

[Sparko]

Not sure how I feel about Kavanaugh actually making it. While I don't have objections to a conservative judge being put on the Supreme Court, I worry that the controversy around Brett Kavanaugh increases the chance of extreme actions by Democrats (whether that be outright court packing whenever they get the trifecta of president/house/senate or, if they only have the Senate, outright refusing to confirm anyone if the president is Republican) and increase the already worrisome polarization of the country. I would've preferred if someone else was put on it. But, it is what it is.

Back to normal in what way? If we're talking about Kavanaugh himself, the accusations will probably be mostly forgotten within a year if he doesn't make it to the Supreme Court because almost no one cares about or pays attention to District or Circuit Judges. People debate about how Merrick Garland was treated, but how many people have paid any attention whatsoever to what he's done since the failed nomination?

Ford has said she will not pursue any further action.

So basically this traumatic incident, which has basically destroyed her entire life so bad that she had to seek therapy for it and marriage counseling, that she had to bring it forth at the last minute to ruin Kavanaugh, and caused her to testify in front of congress crying, and demanding an FBI investigation, now just decides to drop it after Kavanaugh makes it to the supreme court.

[Sparko]

It wouldn't be as bad as getting raped. Wouldn't it be terrible if you were raped, you name your rapist, and nobody believes you because there might hypothetically exist someone who is falsely accused and they might hypothetically be shunned at some point in the future?

But we are talking of you going to jail because of a false accusation, so you would be spending 10 to 15 years in prison for a liar who was NOT raped. Is that better?

Of course false accusations exist. I talked about the statistics behind them in this post. Because false accusations are so rare, it just doesn't make sense to assume them as the default.

Nobody does assume them false as the default. The default is that nobody is guilty unless there is enough evidence to convict. When someone makes an accusation, it should and is taken seriously, and investigated. If there is enough evidence they will arrest the man and put him on trial. If not, they do not arrest him and the charges are dropped. The way it should be and the way every crime is treated, not just rape.