Kavanaugh accuser comes forward

At what age will you have the "if you're ever assaulted and wait too long to tell us I'll call you a liar" talk with your kid?

Never. But have the "if you're ever assaulted, tell the authorities right away instead of waiting for 35 years lest you be mistaken for a partisan activist trying to derail an innocent man's life by making an uncorroborated accusation" talk with them as early as you think they can handle it.

We will have several opportunities to teach our child how to deal with instances such as this:
1. When we cover Deuteronomy 19.15, on which western society’s requirement of witnesses to prove a crime, and thus our presumption of innocence, is based.
2. When we teach our child to not lie and to be open with us.
3. When we encounter them in real life and explain to our child that even if we believe a claim, it is worthless if not provable, and thus they must come to us right away so we can help them prove it.

Those are 3 scenarios off the top of my head. There will be hundreds and thousands of times to model proper behavior to our children.

It is really sad when parents value politics over their children. May you one day know the pain you will cause your children when you side with the one who rapes them.

I do have to agree with you there. I think the present situation is a good example of why things get harder for these victims when they wait. Of course that means it is better off to destroy the lives of a predator early with a sexual predator label and maybe we will start seeing a difference in how young men, and older ones, behave. Perhaps if one of the women donald trump grabbed by the pussy had been able to get him on assault we all would not be dealing with him right now. It is a good reason for the rest of us to believe those women over scum like republicans.

Okay, enough with humoring the tinfoil hats - CWA supplied all sorts of t-shirts and signs and shit and it gets a ton of funding from the Kochs and that's fine with the right; that whole screaming crowd of supporters when Trump announced? Hired. We know this because they had to take him to court when he didn't want to pay what had ben agreed.

I go to some lengths to engage people I suspect are not acting in good faith in order to have civil discussion but I'm going to start saving my brain from exposure to abject dumbassary that's unworthy of any sort of discussion.

Starting with this motherfucker.

if there were term limits - RBG would have been gone some time ago - they cut both ways.

The actual point is that if terms end at regularly scheduled times then the Garland Maneuver would go out the window - and it should.

I would argue that THAT, perhaps more than any other single thing, is THE cause of the cancer in our country currently

The whole mentality that "my greatest joy in life is seeing the people I disagree with suffer" is NOT healthy for the body politic and NOT the way our country has been run in the past. Even in the days when Senators and Reps routinely got in fistfights it was simply passionate attempts to achieve a preferred outcome, it was not "oh how I love liberal tears!" bullshit.

The goal of mature politically minded person ought to be
a. how can we choose that which is best for our country?
and
b. how can I convince more people to share my view of what is best for our country?

But on the right, what we've had for some 25 years now is "own the libs!"

It's like the conservative motto derives directly from Conan the Barbarian.

My team benefited from it, but the Garland Maneuver should be banned. I dunno, maybe set a fixed window for the Senate to review a candidate and automatically approve him/her if they haven't come to a decision by the deadline...probably would require a Constitutional amendment, though, since the appointment requires their consent.

a lot of what the SC is is not specified in the constitution. It would be possible to change a great deal of it without an amendment. You'd need one to alter the lifetime appointment provision but with that you could set specific terms, rotate the seats, specify qualifications, specify a period of time for a nominee to be considered before they are automatically rejected, or whatever - even change the number of seats (which is arguably to low, but if you added more seats and set a rotation then you lengthen the term of service again)

That might be an interesting item in his obituary some day, but he got in by the rules. And his legacy will be his influence on hundreds of Supreme Court cases.

I'll consider the source of these reviews before I get a bout of regret.

because he hasn't had his entitlement challenged before?

Isn't there some principle of evaluating character that you only really see it when one is under intense stress?

they're on backorder. High volume demand. Be patient. We apologize for any inconvenience.

doesn't matter, she died of that terminal illness a year and a half ago. Weren't you paying attention?

Personally I'm much more worried about the long string of lying under oath, including during the hearings that led to his previous job.

Sure.
But then you wouldn't demand to get the job anyway because you were entitled to it.

A little off the subject, but one of my whackier ideas...

Have each state select a Supreme Court justice with a term of, say, 10 years (but NO reappointment after that and no recall to ensure independence). Out of the 50 justices so chosen, every Supreme Court case gets 7 justices, each drawn randomly from the pool (maybe with an additional alternate justice in case of death, health issues, etc.). With so many justices, more cases could be heard and cases could be resolved more quickly. Also, since the parties to a trial never know the ideological makeup of the panel they'll get, they have to think long and hard before taking it to the Supreme Court.

well one might could take that argument seriously if the GOP hadn't badgered Sotomayor on just that particular theme.

I like it.

I saw something similar the other day that proposed that each time a seat opened, each state's senators (in agreement) put forth a qualified nomination and then a random generator selected the next justice from that group. But I think I like your idea better, much more effective in suppressing the likelihood of deliberately partisan decisions.

Of course, forgotten in his infamous quote is that he said "When you're a star, they'll let you do it." which says to me that any pussy-grabbing was consensual.

Well, I'm sure it will be 50 partisan decisions just at the state rather than the federal level , but the randomness means the partisanship will often cancel out. Of course it would mean an occasional decision comes from a set of extreme positions.

I dunno. Might give states incentive to nominate more extreme justices. There's not much incentive to moderation.

The best Koch-owned lackey in the Senate declares this guy (groomed specifically for the task since college) to be the best Koch-owned lackey for the court?

In fairness he may be right.

there's certainly none now!

But now that I think of it, you make a valid point. There are at least half the states who'd nominate someone who thinks like Ted Cruz and it doesn't take a leap of the imagination to think you'd often get 4 out of the 7 in the random draw from those states.

to quote me on Facebook, this is our devil's triangle:
The Oligarchs
The Dominionists
and sane America

and it's us, the latter, getting boofed.

yeah...that would be swell if even 20 states had such legal protections (they don't, it's 18 or 19 depending) and PUS hadn't given free reign to Pence and his dominionist minions to strip away literally every federal protection against discrimination on those grounds.

So yeah, to put a fine point on your ignorance - a gay couple can, under federal law, freely get married - and in 31 states also get fired Monday morning because they did with ZERO legal recourse.

My state literally passed a law that SPECIFICALLY SAID (paraphrased) "feel free to discriminate against gay or trans people, just be sure you claim it was because of your religion if they bitch about it."

And when someone with standing sues because they were harmed by it - and they will - it will go (eventually) to a SCOTUS with five solid votes to say "we got no problem with that"

So by all means, laugh it up chuckles.

Good god man get the fuck out of your bubble.

As if you care. Needing another laugh?

YES, housing and employment discrimination is RAMPANT in places without legal recourse. Among other things which happen on such a routine daily basis that it falls under "not really news" because it's so common.

But hey, no skin off your nose.

which reveals much about Republicans
(not that we didn't already know)

Doesn't matter. Y'all don't believe them when they report right away either.

It's all "Bitches be LYIN!" no matter when it happens.

And if it's in a church, shell need to come before the congregation and forgive him publicly for the thing he denies doing and apologize for saying anything about it.