President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

The scorecard since 1960. In a more perfect world,
the numbers and the pattern would disturb a lot more people.

 

That's not the kind of question that's coming. Now we're into "so were you ever blackout drunk in high school? So are there any other women you knew/dated who thought you'd attacked them?" "So would you support Mark Judge giving your story its alibi?"
It's not a matter of constitutional law now. It's criminal law, and he's a suspect.

 

Then, of course, there is Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

SENATOR BROWN -- I can see how the equal protection argument would apply to a policy that interfered with her plan to bear the child. Could that argument be applied for someone who wished to have the option of an abortion as well? Does it apply both to the decision to not have an abortion as well as to a decision to have an abortion, to terminate the pregnancy?

A. The argument was it's her right to decide either way, her right to decide whether or not to bear a child.

. . .

But you asked me about my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy, and my answer to you is it's both. This is something central to a woman's life, to her dignity. It's a decision that she must make for herself. And when Government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.

THE SUPREME COURT; Excerpts From Senate Hearing on the Ginsburg Nomination

 

The left hand doesn't know what the right (wing) hand is doing.

 

What is your basis for this claim? Since when are nominees not required to answer questions under oath?

 

In fairness, from what I remember from Robert Caro, LBJ's early political career was pretty sleezy. And JFK had all those shenanigans in the 1960 election.

 

No argument there. It's still a hell of a skew, though.

 

Read this.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh tiptoes through legal minefields on way to confirmation

 

Once again, there's an enormous difference between legal theory questions and questions of fact. You can't skate or say "that's a hypothetical" when they ask, "so do you remember being at the party Dr. Ford has testified to?"

 

What Gee said. The sort of dodges you're referencing regard hypotheticals or questions on legal theory. They don't work for factual questions about his life and background. And simply refusing to answer such questions ain't gonna sit right with anyone.

Maybe he'll give crappy or evasive answers. But to suggest he doesn't have to answer "anything", as you did, is plain nonsense.

 

It's rural Arizona. Voters could see Charlie Manson (R) on the ballot and that's who they're going to vote for.

 

Maybe he takes the 5th