Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is different than calling them after they have made the official statement under penalty of perjury and asking them to change that sworn statement. Can you not see the difference?
No, because Ford did not call anyone and ask them to change their statement. "A person close to the former classmates told the Journal she believed mutual friends of both Ford and Keyser – including McLean – simply reached out to Keyser to warn her that her statement was being used by Republicans as vindication for Kavanagh and if she felt she needed to clarify what she meant, she should. The person said the mutual friends did not “pressure” Keyser."https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fri...on-allegations
Witness tampering is a serious crime, and even if Kavanaugh's actions don't meet the criteria for a charge of witness tampering they certainly appear to be inappropriate. NBC News's Heidi Przbyla and Leigh Ann Caldwell write that Kavanaugh and his team were trying to refute Ramirez’s allegations BEFORE they became public. “The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story. In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with ‘Brett's guy,’ and also with ‘Brett,’ who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: ‘I had to send it to Brett’s team too.’”https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...ematic-n915771
In this particular incident Kavanaugh also lied to Congress, claiming that he first heard about the Ramirez claims on Sept. 23 when he read about it in the New Yorker but there are texts from July in which he discusses the Ramirez allegations.
Per NBC: "Further, the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez."https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...idence-n915566
Here's the reason: The court is to rule on what the law says in cases brought before it. Liberals believe that the court should be another legislative body, which interprets law not as written, but taking into account popular political views (which change with the wind), and imposing their political views. That is NOT what a judge is to do. This is why it is important to have judges on the Supreme Court that believe that 'Lady Justice' is still blind, and who look at the original intent of the law and the Constitution, without regard for popular opinion.
If thats the case then both parties wont be hellbent on nominating their own.
I have no interest in supplanting your curiosity. Do the work. Think for yourself.
You posted the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Some folks are rightfully concerned about 'losing' the American democratic system, concerned about middle class Americans being squeezed out of the electoral process by organized economic power...
So, you made an assertion.
I am asking you to explain why you believe that although nobody will lose his/her right and ability to vote due to organized economic power, there is nonetheless a rational fear that some people will be squeezed out of the electoral process.
How is that fear rational?
Don't tell me to do the work or to think for myself. If you have no intelligent reply, just say so.
What success are you talking about? Corporate judges on the supreme court is not a success for 99.9% of the population because they serve their donors and ensure that it is impossible to run for office and win without begging the donor class for money. How do you personally benefit from this? Do you donate at least half a million per election cycle to the candidates who serve you?
Record unemployment, for all.
Stock market soaring to new heights.
Exit from the horrifically BAD "DEALS" Obama made.
Tax Cuts!
Liberal heads exploding coast-to-coast.
The list could go on and on, but most importantly:
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appointed to the SCOTUS for LIFE!
I am asking you to explain why you believe that although nobody will lose his/her right and ability to vote due to organized economic power, there is nonetheless a rational fear that some people will be squeezed out of the electoral process.
How is that fear rational?
Don't tell me to do the work or to think for myself. If you have no intelligent reply, just say so.
Or, back up your assertion with some explanation.
You said you have no interest in reading.
Don't tell me what to tell you sheesh. Authoritarian & nonsensical is not a good combination nor does it demonstrate a rationale.
Do the work. Think for yourself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sheesh. Authoritarian & nonsensical is not a good combination nor does it demonstrate a rationale.