[Steve_American]

So, now what?

I suggest that the very first thing the new Dem House does is to start the process for Impeaching him.
He lied under oath in front of the nation. Even one lie should be enough to get the House to vote to impeach him and send it to the Senate. But, more than that we can have the FBI investigate the rape charges, etc. To add all we can to the case.
OK, now it is in the Senate.

{I'm breaking into my own post to explain why I am saying this?
I saw a claim on another site that there is a case before the USSC now that is about "can the President pardon a person for a state crime?" The Repuds need Kavanaugh's vote to make this landmark change to the original intent of the Founders. This needs to be blocked at all costs, given our current situation.}

OK, back to my point. In the Senate I expect that the Repuds will not vote to convict and kick Kavanaugh out. So, he will not be kicked out. What then?

Well ---
1] I hope that the local Maryland authorities are charging Kavanaugh with a crime. Then we should ask him to recuse himself while that is going on.
2] It is one more reason that I think the time has come to add 2 or more actual impartial judges to the USSC. IStM that when the other player in the game is blatantly cheating the obvious response is to leave the game [if you can.] In this case we can't leave the game. So, the next proper response is to "cheat" back. The alternative is to lose and keep losing.
. . So, as soon as it is possible I would be calling for exactly the above, i.e. add 2 or more proper impartial judges to the USSC which can be done with a simple/normal law. Being as it is in the Constitution and only requires a simple law and the size of the USSC has been increased in the past; I would argue that cheating is not the right word. It is unprecedented, yes. But then, so is confirming a known gang rapist to the USSC for life, while refusing to let the other accusers testify under oath.


BTW --- I told you so, I told you so, I told you so.
Well none of you here. But, IRL and on another site I predicted that as soon as they needed to the Repuds would end the filibuster for USSC justices. And they did it. I was right.

[Suntzu]

If this bitch walked into the police station and said this happened yesterday but couldn't tell them where it happened, how she got there or how she got home they would laugh and send her home. Kavanaugh is gonna be a supreme justice for a long time. Impreaching him will be another stupid move by the Demokraps because it won't be successful and he will still be on the court. I hope he is a little vindictive.

[Steve_American]

The case I referred to above is Gamble vs US? It's on docket for next Supreme Court session.

From ABA journal

"In Gamble v. United States, the court will consider whether to overrule the “separate sovereigns doctrine,” which provides that the federal government and state governments are separate sovereigns, and double jeopardy does not bar prosecutions against the same person for the same crime in both federal and state courts. This was the holding in Abbate v. United States (1959) and Bartkus v. Illinois (1959), though the doctrine can be traced to Supreme Court decisions going back to the middle of the 19th century."


This is a decision that could impact whether states can prosecute someone with a federal pardon. Hmm...I wonder why that could be important?....

[Rancid]

If this bitch

[Stormsmith]

Rancid:

That's my thinking too. I usually skip his posts.

[Sivad]

The case I referred to above is Gamble vs US? It's on docket for next Supreme Court session.

From ABA journal

"In Gamble v. United States, the court will consider whether to overrule the “separate sovereigns doctrine,” which provides that the federal government and state governments are separate sovereigns, and double jeopardy does not bar prosecutions against the same person for the same crime in both federal and state courts. This was the holding in Abbate v. United States (1959) and Bartkus v. Illinois (1959), though the doctrine can be traced to Supreme Court decisions going back to the middle of the 19th century."


This is a decision that could impact whether states can prosecute someone with a federal pardon. Hmm...I wonder why that could be important?....

It would only bar states from reprosecuting a federal case. It is a violation of double jeopardy that is used maliciously by both state and federal government and it needs to be overturned. If it has wider implications for state sovereignty and the federal system then SCOTUS could just instruct that it only be applied as a narrow ruling.

[Sivad]

I'm in favor of abolishing executive pardons altogether. They do some good but they're mostly just abused for political cronyism.

[Steve_American]

It would only bar states from reprosecuting a federal case. It is a violation of double jeopardy that is used maliciously by both state and federal government and it needs to be overturned. If it has wider implications for state sovereignty and the federal system then SCOTUS could just instruct that it only be applied as a narrow ruling.

Yes, Sivad. The conservative SCJ could make it limited.
But, just like ending the filibuster, they will not. They will not because letting an authoritarian President pardon his lackeys works too well for them.
Like I said, when the other side is blatantly cheating then you need to cheat back to have any chance of winning ever again (or somehow get out of the "game").
.

[Sivad]

when the other side is blatantly cheating then you need to cheat back to have any chance of winning ever again

That's how you destroy your society. It's scary how bad you people are at thinking systemically.

[Steve_American]

That's [cheating back] how you destroy your society. It's scary how bad you people are at thinking systemically.

OK, you are playing chess and your opponent makes an illegal move and takes your Queen and then a Rook, how do you propose to continue the game [assuming that you can't just sweep the pieces off the board and storm off, but must instead start a new game when this one is finished, etc. until you die].

America survived the Civil War that can be seen as one side cheating in the game of politics by going to the game of war. So, it doesn't always destroy your society. Also, one could argue that the society is already destroyed by one side blatantly cheating. [Note the key word there is blatantly. I meant it as "clearly and massively".]

[Libertarian353]

@Steve_American

Ignore Savid, he would rather let this nation fall to genocide than have an establish Democrat.

[Libertarian353]

@Rancid

I wonder if Suntzu will ever have Catch 22 scenario where his daughter or wife was somehow groped or attempted raped by Kavanaugh decades ago(the female silence on rape is prevalent in white southern culture, ironically) would he be cuck and do it for the team or would he snitch. Either one would bad for him.

I also wonder if he called either them a bitch, I wouldn't put it pass him.

[Torus34]

Perhaps one of the most important 'tells' when considering the character of Judge Brett Kavanaugh came when he appeared to lose his composure and speak angrily. Some of what he said was essentially the usual 'conservative' vituperative comments about Democrats. Even the Clintons, those bogeymen of talk show host conspiracy theories, were invoked.

As an aside, there may be a 'law' somewhat similar to Godwin's except the variable is time instead of the number of people. It would go something like this: There is a time constant, 'C',* at which there is a 50% probability a conservative speaking about politics will invoke one or both of the Clintons in a negative context.

I'm sure that some reader will be able to reword this in a more succinct manner. Please do not consider attaching my name to it. There's already a 'law' honoring me - the Law of Maximization of Misery. [For those interested, that law and its formal proof are available online but, sad to say, not readily searchable. Details upon request.]

* 'C' seemed a delightfully appropriate letter to choose.