Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

K and the FBI

Sep 30, 2018 7:16PM PDT

Unless a smoking gun comes out of this probe I expect K is on his way to the SC.

The repubs want him and the dems do not.

Hint.....the repubs are driving the bus.

When the repubs give him the job they will smile and the dems will howl.

The media will go nutso with opinion pieces until the next event happens and then we will move on.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
All we are doing is watching
Oct 1, 2018 2:07AM PDT

our corrupt and self serving congress play their usual games of posturing and probing for later votes while the media enjoys a vacation from the more mundane and gets to sharpen their talents in regards to "spin". We, the public, aren't without fault either. What I've not heard is more discussion about what the Supreme Court's function is. It's my understanding that it's to be apolitical. While a judge, as like anyone else, may have personal opinions, they are bound to make decisions based on existing constitutional principles rather than how they'd have written it.

Neither this candidate nor any sitting judge has the ability to arbitrarily change or repeal a single law. In fact, they cannot even take it upon their collective self to do so. They can only act upon those challenges that, through a long period of time and lower court decisions, have been deemed to qualify for their discussion. So...you people out there shouting and ranting that this man could undo past decisions is unwarranted.

Now should be a great time for our politicians to act in accordance with the spirit of those who put together a plan to make sure that the central government should have a body that keeps political power in balance. As I understand it, absolute majority rule was not the plan.

- Collapse -
RE:They can only act upon those challenges that,
Oct 1, 2018 4:49AM PDT
They can only act upon those challenges that, through a long period of time and lower court decisions, have been deemed to qualify for their discussion.

Can anyone guarantee THAT won't happen? That's how change comes about.

Some rulings were decided by ONE vote...K could be that ONE vote.

How 'bout looking at his appointment as a job interview?

Is it difficult to convict someone that is accused of doing something that you have been accused of doing?

Will people think any judgement on sexual assault given by K will be considered to be biased?

RE:through a long period of time

K would be the new kid on the block and there for the longest period of time to affect change in previous rulings.

I don't understand why lawmakers can't draft/pass laws that don't have to be "interpreted"...

The English language isn't concise enough?
- Collapse -
"[no] sitting judge has the ability to arbitrarily
Oct 1, 2018 6:08AM PDT

change or repeal a single law"

But, a law that's declared unconstitutional is no longer enforceable; effectively repealed.
The reverse is also true.
From our publication God's Kingdom Rules, p. 154:

<quote>In 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled 8 to 1 against Jehovah’s Witnesses in the case known as Minersville School District v. Gobitis. (sic) Lillian Gobitas, aged 12, and her brother William, aged 10, wanted to remain loyal to Jehovah, so they refused to salute the flag or recite the pledge. As a result, they were expelled from school. Their case came before the Supreme Court, and the Court concluded that the school’s actions were constitutional because they were in the interest of “national unity.”
That ruling ignited a firestorm of persecution. More Witness children were expelled from school, adult Witnesses lost their jobs, and a number of Witnesses sufered vicious attacks from mobs. The book The Lustre of Our Country states that the “persecution of Witnesses from 1941 to 1943 was the greatest outbreak of religious intolerance in
twentieth-century America.”

The victory for God’s enemies was short-lived. In 1943, the Supreme Court considered another case similar to the Gobitis case. It is known as West Virginia State Board of
Education v. Barnette. This time, the Supreme Court granted victory to Jehovah’s Witnesses. It was the frst time in U.S. history that the Supreme Court had reversed itself in
such a short period of time. After that ruling, the overt persecution of Jehovah’s people in the United States drastically decreased. In the process, the rights of all citizens of
the United States were strengthened.<end quote>

Most of our many such victories in the US have been the same: A local, state or federal law was rendered void as being unconstitutional.
What do you think of the last sentence in the excerpt? Is it true?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/?contentLanguageFilter=en&pubFilter=kr&sortBy=1

- Collapse -
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I suggested that
Oct 1, 2018 9:21AM PDT

Judge "K" would have no ability to change any law on his own nor would the SC as a body. Decisions can be reversed if, as you noted, additional cases make it through the channels and land in the hands of the SC. No judge can propose a revisit to that which has already been decided. It could well be that any of the nine would welcome an opportunity to reverse a previous decision or declare a law unconstitutional but none of them, AFAIK, can take the initiative to create that opportunity.

- Collapse -
Judges
Oct 1, 2018 10:02AM PDT

I don't like some law or decision.
I sue and take my case to the first court level and get denied.
I then go to the second court level and get denied.
I then work my way up the levels of courts and get denied.
Finally I end up at the SC which has my hand picked judges and get allowed.
Objective achieved.

- Collapse -
Not that simple
Oct 1, 2018 1:58PM PDT

You can't do that just because you don't like some law. You can sue if you can claim the law has done you harm. If you can't show harm, you lose. Any appeal requires some cooperation between the higher and lower courts. I don't know how many levels there may be as this depends on the first jurisdiction of the claim of harm. Some cases take many years to reach the SC. By then, some of the justices you were hoping would side with you may be gone. Without considerable financial backing, you'd not get far.

- Collapse -
If I have the money
Oct 1, 2018 2:46PM PDT

I can hire a team of lawyers who can make a case out of non-sense.
They also know how the court system works and can make a plan to move the case through that system.
If they get a favorable ruling from any level of the courts I win.
If it goes to the SC then my judges might be waiting.
If I lose there then all I have done is spend some of that 'more money than I can spend'.

- Collapse -
A case out of "non-sense" ?(sic)
Oct 1, 2018 4:41PM PDT

I would think that good judges would recognize that quality and send your legal team home with their tails between their legs.

- Collapse -
Perhaps
Oct 1, 2018 4:53PM PDT

But that's why you hire a lawyer.
Explain your gripe and see what they have to say.
If they give you a no then forget it.
If they give you a maybe then it's your call.

- Collapse -
Do you have any idea
Oct 2, 2018 3:24AM PDT

how many 'IF's you and JP present in your posts as 'arguments' for your point of view? Fear is the constant cry of liberals and they use "IF" the same way....what happened to your 'wait and see' approach?

- Collapse -
No
Oct 2, 2018 3:51AM PDT

You tell me.
"If" you don't like the word "If" change it to what suits you.
Is that all you've got to carp about some word?

- Collapse -
RE:your 'wait and see' approach?
Oct 2, 2018 6:13AM PDT
- Collapse -
Bob isn't 'waiting to see'....
Oct 2, 2018 7:04AM PDT

He passes judgments ahead of time with gloom and doom.

- Collapse -
RE:He passes judgments ahead of time
Oct 2, 2018 7:34AM PDT
Forewarned is forearmed?

Donald, let's see what happens when I do this, Trump?

HE's your guy?

You wouldn't him to be forearmed? There is no point in forewarning him....
- Collapse -
He's the one who forewarns, JP
Oct 2, 2018 12:13PM PDT

If other countries don't pay attention to what he warns he will do, that's on them, doncha think? You're just used to politicians who hide everything they do because they know the voters wouldn't agree with it so they avoid backlash until it's done and over....Trump doesn't fit that mold. He's so transparent that liberals can't deal with it rationally.

- Collapse -
RE:He's the one who forewarns, JP
Oct 2, 2018 1:00PM PDT

He's in love with KJU and him and Melania are going to get a divorce?

That's the reason she went to the s***hole countries?

All part of his transparencies?

Donald through the looking glass?

- Collapse -
A good point about the timing.
Oct 2, 2018 4:11AM PDT

Famous example of the uncertainty involved was Earl Warren. As CA governor in the war, he lined up behind popular prejudice and incarcerated thousands of Japanese-Americans. As Chief Justice later, he was famously liberal.
You pays your money and you takes your chances.

- Collapse -
Fickle government and fickle public
Oct 2, 2018 4:55AM PDT

War changes the whole atmosphere (Stand up and be counted or expect to be disowned).

The end of war sees a different view (Look what we just did. We've become criminals
ourselves. We need to fix this).

And even later when, and another war may be looming, we get a case of amnesia. Those who are or were soldiers are alternately cursed and praised by those who never answered the call.

- Collapse -
I had in mind also that he was appointed by Ike,
Oct 3, 2018 10:29PM PDT

nominally a conservative. Although Ike wasn't of the modern stripe, I'm guessing he didn't see the "Warren Court" coming. Things 'gang aft agley'.

- Collapse -
And IF Ginzer steps down
Oct 2, 2018 7:13AM PDT

and Trump gets to pick another one, the Dems will lose ALL their leftover ***** from K, and IF you thought THIS was/is a fiasco, just 'wait....and see'.

- Collapse -
I said nothing about a fiasco
Oct 2, 2018 7:39AM PDT

I gave an opinion about the FBI probe and what would follow unless something big comes out.

No gloom and doom.

It's the senates job to make a choice.

I see you used the IF word......does that make you a liberal spreading fear?

- Collapse -
Since you noticed, you should have also
Oct 2, 2018 12:17PM PDT

noticed that I used CAPS for it, in order to call your attention to how easily a 'guessing' game can be used to strike fear....and liberals are terrified that Trump will get a third SCOTUS nominee....

- Collapse -
So
Oct 2, 2018 3:39PM PDT

Does that make you a liberal striking fear?

I was not aware that Ginz was planning to retire.

The Don has not got #2 in there yet so #3 might be wishful thinking for some.

If the Dems can bottle it up until after the mid-terms he may never get #2 in there.

I would have expected the same show from the repubs if the shoe had been on the other foot.

K did not make a very good impression during the hearings.

- Collapse -
The Dems
Oct 3, 2018 1:59AM PDT

announced that they wouldn't vote for ANY of the 25 names on Trump's list (no other candidate has EVER given a list of people they would consider for SCOTUS BEFORE they were elected, let alone AFTER,,,,,they just nominate when they are able to). As for your stupid claim that the Reps would have done the same 'search and destroy' tactics, you know for a fact that they have NEVER done anything of the kind, but the Dems HAVE a history of doing it. Even when McConnell refused to vote on BO's last pick, they used the BIDEN RULE to do it but NEVER said the nominee wasn't qualified or tried to use smear tactics as an excuse to not call a vote.
"K didn't make a good impression"....but SHE did???????????? Seriously???????? K WILL get the vote and move on to SCOTUS.

- Collapse -
RE:(no other candidate has EVER given a list of people they
Oct 3, 2018 3:14AM PDT
(no other candidate has EVER given a list of people they would consider for SCOTUS BEFORE they were elected,

In fact TheRUMP outdid himself....HE released 2 lists

. During the 2016 campaign, Trump had released two lists of potential nominees to the Supreme Court. After taking office, he nominated Neil Gorsuch to succeed Scalia, On September 23, 2016, he released a second list of ten possible nominees, this time including three minorities.

The more people on "the list"...the more likely friends of the people on "the list" will vote for you?
- Collapse -
And you just confirmed my point
Oct 3, 2018 5:28AM PDT

Both lists were released PRIOR to the election...…..first time in history this has happened....And the fact that K was on the list, and that the Dems were ALREADY vetting the names on that list because they were given so much time to do so, in addition to ALREADY stating publicly that they would NOT vote for ANY of the names on that list, again confirms their complete RESIST agenda. (as an afterthought...perhaps they DIDN'T bother to vet them ahead of time because they never believed he would actually win, so they probably DIDN'T start vetting any of them until AFTER the Nov. election while they were all literally crying).

- Collapse -
RE:And you just confirmed my point
Oct 3, 2018 5:41AM PDT

The only point I confirmed was he released 2 lists...

Since you claim to have all the answers

Why did he feel it was necessary to release a second list?

In the September announcement, the campaign said Trump had committed to picking any nominees for future vacancies from that final list. However, shortly before the Senate confirmed Gorsuch in April, administration officials said the president did not feel bound to pick a second Supreme Court justice from his campaign list.

Here's my list...but it doesn't mean I'll pick anybody from the list?

PS...YO! DEMS....IF you want to investigate them go ahead, but it could just be a waste of YOUR time, since I don't feel obligated to pick from the list.

Post was last edited on October 3, 2018 5:51 AM PDT

- Collapse -
Another RIGHTY RANT?
Oct 3, 2018 7:03AM PDT

If the shoe was on the other foot the repubs would have done whatever was needed to block that vote until after the elections.

You can sure read stuff into post that is not there.
Off your meds today?
But she did????................Seriously?????
The her was not mentioned in my post.

K will get the vote unless the FBI comes up with a smoking gun.
I've already said that.
The dems don't want another righty on the SC the repubs do.

- Collapse -
You are so wrong about this....
Oct 4, 2018 3:56AM PDT

"If the shoe was on the other foot the repubs would have done whatever was needed to block that vote until after the elections."

McConnell held up voting on BO's last pick....but nowhere in history can you point to an instance of Repubs totally destroying a man/woman's entire life over a seat on SCOTUS and doing it with gusto like the Dems have done since they started it with Bork and got away with it. Reps have never been this ugly and deliberative in their collective destruction. I haven't seen even one Dem condemn this crap....I've only seen those who speak defend it. The rest try to stay as silent and out of the spotlight as possible because they KNOW what's being done is wrong but haven't got any spine against Pelosi, Schumer, Booker, Harris, and the whackjob from Hawaii. Even, until over the weekend, Pocahontas kept quiet...until she realized they had all taken her publicity away.

- Collapse -
Another Righty Rant #2?
Oct 4, 2018 8:30AM PDT

Your still reading things into post that are not there.

I said nothing about the repubs destroying a man's life.

Go back and read the post again but this time do it slowly without your Righty bias.

The Dems are playing politics with an eye on the mid-terms.

That does not mean I agree with the treatment of K I just understand what is going on.

I don't give a hoot about K's drinking in HS or College.... as for the she said/he said flip a coin.