COPPER JUST GOT CLOBBERED

But you don't "believe women" HA, you believe the accusers, perhaps, but you don't believe the ones who said there isn't even a possibility that Thomas could have behaved that way towards a woman without them catching even a single whisper about it.

Hill's accusations were supposed to have occurred, or at least started, a full 10 years before Thomas' nomination. Why wait? Why not make those accusations when he was nominated as a judge on the Appeals Court for the DC Circuit? Why not when he was nominated to be the Chair of the EEOC? Why follow someone who was sexually harassing you from one department to another?

And isn't Thomas' wife, whom he married before he was nominated, white? If Thomas made no distinction in skin color (his first wife was black), wouldn't his behavior have been directed at women regardless of their skin color?

There's too much that just doesn't add up HA, including the fact that Thomas was confirmed by a Senate that was controlled by Democrats, something along the lines of 57-43 give or take. Democrats could have derailed his confirmation, easily, had they chosen to do so. The reality of the situation is that there were a fair number of Democrats who didn't buy into the story either, Thomas' confirmation was a bipartisan action, had to have been, Republicans lacked the votes to confirm without the help of Democrats.

IT WAS THE EARLY 90'S,WHAT WAS THE' 'ATMOSPHERE ''BACK THEN....I WORKED IN CORP AMERICA ABOUT THAT TIME, IT WAS SEXIST AND U EITHER UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS THE GAME AND GRIN AND BEAR IT OR U COULD JOIN UP AND SEND THE SEXIST REMARK,BACK AT THEM....HEY BOYS,IN YOUR DREAMS.....AT ONE DEPT(IN FIELD OPERATION), i EVEN HAD A SUPERVISOR TELL ME (AT A FAREWELL PARTY BAR)..."U DIDN'T KNOW U HAD A REPUTATION AT THE LAKEWOOD OFFICE, DID U?".......U WERE VOTED BEST "BUNS" IN LAKEWOOD FIELD OFFICE. , ANOTHER TIME, A MARRIED MID LEVEL MANAGER WAS GIVING A BULLSHIT LINE OF "WE HAVE AN OPEN MARRIAGE", i'D LIKE TO TAKE U OUT TO DINNER.

MY MALE GOOD FRIEND AND I CAR POOLED TO THE OFFICE ALOT.....HE ALWAYS GOT ASKED IF WE HAD SEXUAL ACTION GOING ON.....GOD,IT WAS AN ORDEAL JUST TO GET PAYED EVERY WEEK, OH,BY THE WAY THAT MID LEVEL SUPERVISOR WHO I DECLINED TO DATE? HE GOT HIS REVENGE BY RE ASSIGNING ME TO A DEPT I ABSOLUTELY HATED.

SO, THERE R MANY WAYS WOMEN HANDLED THE BULLSHIT. ANITA ELECTED TO CALL IT OUT
AND IT WAS DEGRADING DESPICABLE AND IN THE END DID NOTHING ,BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE U DISSED THE DISCUSSION AND DOWNGRADED THE SEVERITY OF THE ISSUE.

Look, I know you want to believe the accuser because of who the accused is HA, and that's fine, it truly is. But it wholly ignores the fact that many of the accusations made are false (Duke Lacrosse ring any bells?)

This isn't a case where virtually every starlet who sought a role in a movie produced by a certain male, or directed by a certain male, was invited to audition on the casting couch and there is a general consensus as to the character of that producer or director. You had one accuser willing to testify and a host of women who said that in all the years they had worked with Thomas they had never seen or heard anything that would give credence to the accusation being made. Doesn't establish that Hill was lying, but it sure doesn't rise to the preponderance of evidence necessary to deny him a seat on the court either.

OMG.LET US REVIEW HISTORY...THAT WEASEL K WAS ACCUSED BY CHRISTINE FORD OF SEXUAL ASSUALT...OTHER WOMEN CAME FORWARD TO DESCRIBE THEIR EXPERIENCES ,THERE WERE OTHER WOMEN READY TO GIVE STATEMENTS ....THEY WERE NEVER CONTACTED BY THE FBI.....WHY? BECAUSE K WAS SLATED TO BE ON THE SCOTUS AND TRUMP
NEVER ORDERED THE FBI TO MAKE CONTACT.....A BLOW OFF WAS THE ANSWER AND K BECAME A SCOTUS JUDGE....WOMEN R DRAGGED THRU THE MUD,.SLIMMED BY ALLEGATIONS OF BEING SLUT, CALLED DELUSIONAL OR HAVING A HAZY MEMORY.....WHAT THAT HAS TOLD WOMEN...U WILL NOT BE BELIEVED,U WILL NOT SEE JUSTICE AND YOU WILL BE EMOTIONAL DESTROYED IF U COME FORWARD.....ASK NICOLE SIMPSON ABOUT GOING UP AGAINST POWERFUL MEN....OH, SORRY, I FORGOT....SHE DEAD BECAUSE NO ONE BELIEVED HER.

And just like that the goalpost is moved . . .

Ford's accusation was from the time the two of them were in high school . . . nearly 40 years before his nomination to the court. Ramirez's accusation was nearly as old, made in 2018 for something that she said occurred in 1983. Swetnick's accusations were from the same time frame. So, once again, I'll ask, why wait until he was nominated to sit on SCOTUS to come forward? Why not when he was nominated to sit on an appeals court? Why not when he was being confirmed by the Senate for a position in the Bush administration?

Additionally, why did Feinstein, not Trump, Senator Dianne Feinstein, hold onto the letter that Ford sent her instead of referring it to the FBI in a timely fashion? Feinstein held onto that letter for a full week after the Judiciary Committee had finished its inquiry before referring the accusation to the FBI, which found no credible evidence to support the accusation; which is unsurprising given the length of time that had passed between the alleged event and the investigation of the alleged event. Did Feinstein hold onto it so she could try an "October Surprise" on Kavanaugh's nomination? Did Feinstein believe Ford? If she did, why wait, why did she hold onto the letter for so long after she received it?

The Democrat Party? They believe in Trump's accusers but not Juanita Broderick nor Paula Jones.

HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION IN MY PREVIOUS POST.....ONE THERE WERE CONSEQUENCES TO CONSIDER,BUT FORD UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS MAN WAS NOT A GOOD
CANDIDATE FOR THE POSITION AND IT WAS TOO PERTINENT TO NOT SAY ANYTHING AND ALLOW HIS "SEAT" TO OCCUR....SO SHE CAME FORWARD, WITH GREAT TREPIDATION.

TIGERS DO NOT CHANGE SPOTS, TRUMP IS WHO HE IS..A "OUT FOR MYSELF PERSON" AND k'S TENDENCIES TO LIE TO ACHIEVE HIS AIM R STILL WITHIN THEIR FRAMEWORK.

AS FOR HOLDING BACK INFO FEINSTEIN HAD...IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT FORD WAS NOT SURE IN HER DECISION AND FEINSTEIN HONORED THAT.....THE FBI STILL DID NOT GET A REQUEST FROM TRUMP TO INVESTIGATE ALL LEADS, SO IT WENT DARK. THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE SHOWED A DIFFERENT PICTURE THAN WHAT WAS PRESENTED.

BUT OVER AND ABOVE THAT HIS DRINKING PROBLEM, (WHEN INTERVIEWED BY HARRIS) WAS
A GLARING GOT CHA"...HIS RESPONSE TO HER WAS HALTING AND HILARIOUS,AS HE WAS TRYING TO PAINT THE BEST PICTURE POSSIBLE.

THEN HE LIED ABOUT HIS ASSESSMENT OF ABORTION RIGHTS (WHICH WERE NEUTRAL) WHEN IN REALITY HE FELT IT WAS NOT

At another point, Feinstein asked Kavanaugh if he agreed with former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor “that a woman’s right to control her reproductive life impacts her ability to, quote, ‘participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.’”

In response, he said:

Kavanaugh: Well, as a general proposition, I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade. So Roe v. Wade held, of course, and it reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability, subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point where that regulation constitutes an undue burden on the woman’s right to obtain an abortion.

And one of the reasons for that holding, as explained by the court in Roe, and also in Planned Parenthood v. Casey more fully, is along the lines of what you said, Sen. Feinstein, about the quote from Justice O’Connor. So that is one of the rationales that undergirds Roe v. Wade. It is one of the rationales that undergirds Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Feinstein also asked Kavanaugh about an email he sent in March 2003 while working in the George W. Bush administration. In the message, in which he replied to an email that included a draft of an op-ed written to defend some of Bush’s judicial nominees, Kavanaugh wrote: “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since [the] Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”

“This has been viewed as you saying that you don’t think Roe is settled,” Feinstein said, after reading part of the email aloud during the hearing. “So please, once again, tell us why you believe Roe is settled law, and if you could, do you believe it is correctly settled?”

Kavanaugh again called Roe “an important precedent” that “has been reaffirmed many times”:

Kavanaugh: In that draft letter, it was referring to the views of legal scholars, and I think my comment in the email is that might be overstating the position of legal scholars, and so it was not a technically accurate description in the letter of what legal scholars thought. At that time, I believe Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia were still on the court at that time.

But the broader point was simply that I think it was overstating something about legal scholars. And I am always concerned with accuracy, and I thought that was not quite accurate description of legal, all legal scholars because it referred to “all.”

To your point, your broader point, Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times. It was reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 when the court specifically considered whether to reaffirm it or whether to overturn it. In that case, in great detail, the three-justice opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter and Justice O’Connor went through all the factors, the stare decisis factors, analyzed those, and decided to reaffirm Roe.

HE PHRASED HIS ANSWER TO BE NEBULOUS, SO THAT HE WOULD BE SELECTED AND THEN BROUGHT UP THE POINT OF'' NOT SETTLED LAW '' THAT THEN OVERTURNED R.V.W. A WEASEL IN WORDS AND ACTIONS.....DO NOT TELL ME THIS WASN'T A SCREW JOB

Roe was never settled law, mostly because it was SCOTUS, not a legislature, which sought to write the law. That was something Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself acknowledged, that Roe was a bad decision. It was never accepted, always challenged, always under fire, because it was wrongly decided.

Roe, like many SCOTUS decisions prior, was just as wrong on the day it was decided as on the day it was overturned. Korematsu v US, Plessy v Ferguson, Kelo v City of New London (though that one has yet to be overturned, it's still wrongly decided), SCOTUS is a human institution, comprised of human beings, thus it is a flawed institution, and it will make mistakes which have to be later corrected. Dobbs corrected the error of Roe. SCOTUS is not now, nor has it ever been, nor should it ever be, a legislative body, it has no business drafting legislation as it did in Roe, the federal Constitution prohibits it from doing so. Regardless of whether or not the effect of Roe is correct, the means by which it was decided were not, and it needed to be cast aside.

The citizens of this Union elect legislators to represent them and if they wish to remove all prohibitions on elective homicide, the representatives of the citizens are empowered to do so. Colorado has done so, California has done so. Anywhere the will of the people is to remove any and all restrictions placed upon the practice of elective homicides their legislature is empowered to do so. Convincing a court to do the work of the legislature is not allowed in our system of government. The judiciary interprets the laws, it doesn't write them.

With regard to Kavanaugh's accusers . . . it is unconscionable that anyone would consider requiring someone to account for alleged accusations being made for the first time, and upon which the only evidence is the memory of the accuser, that are 40+ years old. Unconscionable. You want me to remember, at 60+ years of age, what I did on a specific night 40+ years ago when I was a senior in high school? Really? You want to compel me to defend myself against such an accusation? It shouldn't even be entertained. How many people do you know that are the same person today that they were 40+ years ago . . . I can't think of a single one. Life has a way of changing people over that period of time, for better or for worse, but changed nonetheless.

Quotes › Authors › R › Ruth Bader Ginsburg › Abortion
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quotes About Abortion





AH, HERE R HER ACTUALLY WORDS.....RIGHTS TO REPRODUCTIVE CONTROL (AND THAT MY FRIEND, IS NOW SUCH A SCREW JOB THAT WOMEN R DYING FROM MISCARRIAGES,BECAUSE
OF LACK OF MEDICAL INTERVENTION).....I AM A WOMAN, DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH MY BODY,IT IS MY DECISION AND MINE ALONE...THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT RAMMED THEIR POV DOWN FEMALES THROATS AND THE RESULT IS NEEDLESS SUFFERING AND DEATH.....THERE IS A SPECIAL SECTION OF HELL FOR ZEALOTS.


All quotesNew Quotes (34)AbortionAgeConstitutionDecisionsGivingJudgingJusticemore...

The emphasis must be not on the right to abortion but on the right to privacy and reproductive control.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Women, Abortion, Privacy

The irony and tragedy is any woman of means can have a safe abortion somewhere in the United States. But women lacking the wherewithal to travel can't. There is no big constituency out there concerned about access restrictions on poor women.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Mean, Abortion, Tragedy
Source: newrepublic.com

Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that changed their abortion laws before Roe are not going to change back. So we have a policy that only affects poor women, and it can never be otherwise.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Mean, Law, Choices
"The Place of Women on the Court". Interview with Emily Bazelon, www.nytimes.com . July 7, 2009.

Interesting that you chose to leave out:

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.", along with,

"In a 1992 talk at New York University that she later turned into a law review article, Ginsburg argued that the court had been right to strike down the Texas anti-abortion law challenged by the plaintiff, “Jane Roe,” but Ginsburg said that the justices erred in their “breathtaking” decision to render virtually every abortion restriction in the country illegal."

And lest we forget . . . "Roe v. Wade “invited no dialogue with legislators,” she wrote. “Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court.”

And that us why Roe was set aside and the matter returned to the legislatures, SCOTUS is not allowed under the federal Constitution to draft laws, they are only empowered to review them. The ends do not justify the means just because it is SCOTUS setting aside constitutional guardrails.

One's right to privacy doesn't extend to being judge, jury, and executioner of another human life. Every law we have punishes those who destroy a human life when they are not in danger of losing their own . . . except for the ones which allow elective homicides of the human life in utero.