The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
LOST said:
The last SCOTUS appointee who did not attend an Ivy League Law School was John Paul Stevens nominated by President Gerald Ford over 40 years ago.
There was an article a few years back, I believe it may have been before the Kagan nomination, that made the case that even more important than gender/ethnic diversity on the SCOTUS would be diversity of academic/employment background. How about a person who went to a state university law school and then spent time working as a defense attorney? Of course that will never happen, because anyone who's spent time representing regular folks instead of moneyed interest would be of no interest to a president of either party.
ml1 said:
LOST said:There was an article a few years back, I believe it may have been before the Kagan nomination, that made the case that even more important than gender/ethnic diversity on the SCOTUS would be diversity of academic/employment background. How about a person who went to a state university law school and then spent time working as a defense attorney? Of course that will never happen, because anyone who's spent time representing regular folks instead of moneyed interest would be of no interest to a president of either party.
The last SCOTUS appointee who did not attend an Ivy League Law School was John Paul Stevens nominated by President Gerald Ford over 40 years ago.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg represented the interests of lots of "regular folks" in her legal career. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's legal career included public service and public interest advocacy. Those are examples of nominees of Democratic presidents, of course.
From the Wikipedia article on Justice Brandeis:
When his family's finances became secure, he began devoting most of his time to public causes and was later dubbed the "People's Lawyer". He insisted on serving on cases without pay so that he would be free to address the wider issues involved. The Economist magazine calls him "A Robin Hood of the law." Among his notable early cases were actions fighting railroad monopolies, defending workplace and labor laws, helping create the Federal Reserve System, and presenting ideas for the new Federal Trade Commission. He achieved recognition by submitting a case brief, later called the "Brandeis Brief," which relied on expert testimony from people in other professions to support his case, thereby setting a new precedent in evidence presentation.
Looking through the past couple of pages I have to say that the one thing I love about Mtierney is her consistency. Whether it is priests raping little boys, billionaires grabbing women by their pussies or drunken jocks trying to rape 15 year olds, its always the victim's fault. She never met a conservative rapist she didn't want to support.
To borrow from the good doctor, Stink, Stank, Stunk!
Good morning, everyone!
A lot has happened over the past 18 hours or so, not all of which I’ve caught up on (apart from headlines). However I have just read this very interesting article, which I think might help people like mtierney and others, who don’t understand all the ‘fuss’ underpinning modern views:
Thanks for the link, Joanne. The only book I know about was Feminine mystic.
I have always been a woman who had lots of women friends, enjoyed their company, our commonality. I have always enjoyed being a woman and did not ever feel diminished or held back by the men in my life. Certainly not by the men closest in my life — father, brother, husband — nor even the professional colleagues or bosses.
At age 20, I was working at a magazine in Manhattan, traveling by subway from my Brooklyn. NYC back in the ‘50s, was more like “The Naked City”. I was groped, pinched, and exposed to by men. There was an elevator operator in our building who really gave me the creeps, stopping the elevator between floors when I was working late ”to talk”. Eventually, I spoke with my boss. The man was fired.
I, in no way, ever wanted to be a man, act like a man, drink or swear like some men. I enjoyed being a woman, a wife, and mother.
Sadly, I think women today have lost a quality of behavior and respect once enjoyed —- probably forever. The hooking up, belly to the bar, and potty mouths of some women diminishes them in my opinion.
All that said, serial killers and rapists are insane and should be feared and taken off the streets. Alcoholism and drugs destroys everything. Infidelity hurts everyone it touches.
I have been blessed in life for sure!
Statistically speaking, as a NJ Catholic, you must have known many victims of clerical sexual abuse. Given your attitudes, I have to assume that they have (wisely) chosen not to share their experiences with you but I wonder whether, if they had, that pain would have been able to stir some shadow of empathy in your heart.
mtierney said:
Sadly, I think women today have lost a quality of behavior and respect once enjoyed —- probably forever. The hooking up, belly to the bar, and potty mouths of today seem to hate men.
Serial killers and rapists are insane and should be feared. I just believe all men should not be viewed as threats.
this is so out of touch with the real world.
It’s really interesting that the first feminist title on that list of books is from the 1790s.
At his rally today, Donald Trump was mocking Dr. Blasey Ford, and his crowd was cheering him for that.
Nobody should be making excuses for that kind of garbage behavior by him.
Fair commentary from a liberal commentator.
mtierney said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opinion/trump-kavanaugh-ford-allegations.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-columnists
Fair commentary from a liberal commentator.
Bret Stephens is NOT a liberal, and he doesn't claim to be. That aside, his argument here is breathtakingly disingenuous.
Sen Collins’ remarks should be required reading/listening — she was very comprehensive, and dignified.
mtierney said:
Sen Collins’ remarks should be required reading/listening — she was very comprehensive, and dignified.
But she was wrong, and mainly she was wrong because of how uncomprehensive and undignified Kavanaugh was in his testimony.
mtierney said:
Sen Collins’ remarks should be required reading/listening — she was very comprehensive, and dignified.
Oh yes. The man who screamed about left wing conspiracies and threatened, “What goes around comes around “ will hel heal a division. There will be fewer 5-4 decisions. I can’t decide which woman is the bigger fool: the one spouting these lies or the one believing them.
Jerseyperson said:
mtierney said:Oh yes. The man who screamed about left wing conspiracies and threatened, “What goes around comes around “ will hel heal a division. There will be fewer 5-4 decisions. I can’t decide which woman is the bigger fool: the one spouting these lies or the one believing them.
Sen Collins’ remarks should be required reading/listening — she was very comprehensive, and dignified.
Only one of them will rot in hell
is there an insult in those last couple of posts? Who is it?
“Presumption of innocence” of the accused and lack of corroborating evidence by the alleged victim were the primary reasons the allegations fell apart.
Women should be believed, but there must be solid evidence to back their accounts.
Frankly, there were so many holes in Dr Ford’s story — time frame, location vague, etc — I am coming to think that the
Democratic leadership also victimized and used Dr Ford and her account of an event 36 years ago. Did they lead her to believe such a weak case would be supported by the Metoo movement and succeed?
Was it really just all about politics?
mtierney said:
is there an insult in those last couple of posts? Who is it?
“Presumption of innocence” of the accused and lack of corroborating evidence by the alleged victim were the primary reasons the allegations fell apart.
Women should be believed, but there must be solid evidence to back their accounts.
By your reasoning if I attempted to rape someone, an attempt did not succeed and did not leave physical evidence, I should be cleared.
Wow, rapists would love for you to be their judge.
And btw, this was a job interview with life time tenure thrown in. We don't use criminal standards of proof for job interviews. In my experience, doubt is all it takes for a candidate to the rejected.
mtierney said:
is there an insult in those last couple of posts? Who is it?
“Presumption of innocence” of the accused and lack of corroborating evidence by the alleged victim were the primary reasons the allegations fell apart.
Women should be believed, but there must be solid evidence to back their accounts.
Frankly, there were so many holes in Dr Ford’s story — time frame, location vague, etc — I am coming to think that the
Democratic leadership also victimized and used Dr Ford and her account of an event 36 years ago. Did they lead her to believe such a weak case would be supported by the Metoo movement and succeed?
Was it really just all about politics?
Oh yeah, now the Democrats assaulted Dr Ford. Have you no shame?
mtierney said:
is there an insult in those last couple of posts? Who is it?
“Presumption of innocence” of the accused and lack of corroborating evidence by the alleged victim were the primary reasons the allegations fell apart.
Women should be believed, but there must be solid evidence to back their accounts.
Frankly, there were so many holes in Dr Ford’s story — time frame, location vague, etc — I am coming to think that the
Democratic leadership also victimized and used Dr Ford and her account of an event 36 years ago. Did they lead her to believe such a weak case would be supported by the Metoo movement and succeed?
Was it really just all about politics?
we are endowed with the ability to listen and think critically. Anyone who listened to both Ford and Kavanaugh could come to a reasonable conclusion about what was more likely to be true.
mtierney. Kavanaugh lied under oath. We do not even need to address Professor Ford’s allegations. He lied about receiving stolen emails. He lied about knowing about torture. He lied about how much he drank. He lied about his record on environmental issues. There were other lies as well.
I know you’re going to protect an alleged conservative sexual predator, but don’t you think committing perjury should be a disqualification for the Supreme Court?
Dems should have addressed Brett as Lyin' Pukin' Brett from the start. And Grassley as Ole Dumb 'n Wrinkley. That's how the president would have handled things and this method seem to work.
Say what we will about Trump, but he manages to unite disparate groups and ideologies under his leadership. Using rallies, tweets and cringing statements to keep his base engaged.
Its working. There could be a red wave. The midterms will be determined on who gets out the vote.
How Trump helped shift momentum in favor of Kavanaugh
Relying on a hardball approach that left Democrats shaken and defeated, Republican leaders plowed through the chaos of the last few weeks to bring the Supreme Court nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the cusp of confirmation.
What do the Democrats have to engage and motivate? To focus? Tottering Pelosi?
It is worth noting that, absent the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh was a assured of confirmation, so Trump didn't bring about a sea change so much as he shored up some wavering Republicans. That being said, Trump has been doing pretty well lately, at least optically. Unemployment is down (but real wage growth remains elusive). He can crow about NAFTA 2.0 although the benefits remain to be seen. He got his SC nominee through the gauntlet although Kavanaugh is very unpopular.
But I don't really think he is expanding his base all that much.
tjohn said:
But I don't really think he is expanding his base all that much.
Expanding the base help but getting out the vote is what counts.
Trump's approval is about 42%, disapproval 52%, 10% uncommitted. If Trump can get 60% of his approvals to vote while the other 52% are still only voting at 40%, he will have won. It also helps there is a gerrymander bias favoring Republicans.
“What do the Democrats have to engage and motivate? To focus? Tottering Pelosi? “
Bingo!
mtierney said:
“What do the Democrats have to engage and motivate? To focus? Tottering Pelosi? “
Bingo!
Actually, Trump is doing a good job of motivating of women who are not otherwise preoccupied with enabling sexual assault.
Rentals
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Garage Sales
-
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
The last SCOTUS appointee who did not attend an Ivy League Law School was John Paul Stevens nominated by President Gerald Ford over 40 years ago.