I thought you'd learn by now that when I say things I often have data to back it up. I don't randomly reach conclusions. Remember that. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-supreme-court-facing-a-legitimacy-crisis/
Yeah ok. I admire how you keep ignoring the extremist Kagan and Sotomeyer. I dont want any judge legislating from the bench. Those two certainly will.
Even according to your graph, it shows that the number of people who have "very little/none" faith in the SCOTUS is the same as 1975.... Now sure there's fewer that say "Great deal/quite a lot" and more that say "some", but that small change can be explained by butt hurt Democrats upset that they didn't get their way.
Lul, yeah, Kagan is so extremist that Amy Coney Barrett considers her a role model for a judge. Nice try though.
That really just points out the hypocrisy on the left. They'll ignore corroborated allegations when it comes to Ellison, but they switch to "believe all women" mode when it comes to uncorroborated allegations against a Republican.
If you don't realize that Kagan is a far left SCOTUS justice then there's no reason to continue this conversation. You don't have the requisite knowledge to hold it.
??? The graph shows that people have lost faith in the court, that there was always some people that had very little to no faith should be no revelation here. Do you have data to back up this claim? That it's 'butt hurt' democrats? If you do, are these butt hurt democrats not American citizens? LOL this is rich that you'd think the Democrats would protect Ellison at all when he's always been opposed to Schumer/Pelosi's power. They had/have every reason politically to throw him right the **** out like they did Franken. If you want to call Kagan far left you're going to actually have to explain why that is for me to take your opinion seriously.
LOL, fair enough, if I need to explain it to you that means that you don't have the requisite knowledge for this conversation.
Justices Sotomeyer and Kagan have already been confirmed. And I don't think either were suspected of heavy drinking, sexually assaulting someone, or lying during their confirmation hearing. I would have also included Justice Thomas, but... But we are discussing Kavanaugh. If you really are concerned about legislating from the bench, do you think kavanaugh will legislate from the bench? Seems like everything else, there are two sides of that story with him...
Yeah, that's not really what happened, you just proved that this conversation is over your head, so I ended it.
Yeah, that's really what happened, you just proved that this conversation is over your head, so you ended it.
Kagan was recommended by Scalia and Sotomeyer was nominated to her first Federal Circuit Court position by Bush Sr.
It's actually pretty easy and common to misremember insignificant details during a traumatic event, and plus it was 30+ years ago. It's pretty ridiculous to hold anyone to that kind of memory. The only thing you'd expect a victim to remember is the details of the accused. You can go on and on with examples, and those scenarios would still be less than 0.01% of what happens in sexual assault cases. Obviously there are punishments for those who lie to the police or a grand jury, and let's not pretend this whole making up false claims is some kind of epidemic. I mean, look how old some of your examples are. The Duke lacrosse case was more than a decade ago. And don't make this about gender. I would believe a man's, woman's, boy's, or girl's sexual assault allegation just as much, though obviously they don't happen nearly as often. I believe victims, period. It's the right thing to do, to give them the benefit of the doubt.
No, it's not the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to weigh the evidence and then decide who to believe based on that. I just pointed out a few high profile cases where the sexual assault allegations were proven false but that was just a small sample, there are many, many more. Hell Tucker Carlson had a crazy woman accuse him of rape back when he was on CNN, if people merely believed the "victim", he'd have been in trouble. No one inherently deserves to be believed, you should trust if you feel like, but you should always verify. If claims cannot be verified, they shouldn't be believed. If some random kid was to accuse you of being a child molester, would you want people to just believe them or would you hope that people would reserve judgement about you until those kinds of claims could be proven?
I can't see who you are talking to so it must be the only person I have ever blocked. He goes deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.
Oh good, the 'Talk trash about people I blocked' tactic. The odd thing is for me, I've never personally insulted you or anything, all I literally did was link you to an article about stats. You blocked me for linking you stats because truthfully you didn't want to confront them...meanwhile you go back and forth several pages and pages with people that actually do insult you... But hey, congrats, you blocked me. I'm not sure why this is something to brag about to announce it but hey, you do you and continue to chum it up with a poster that uses a slur that you've always hated because the guy agrees with your politics and I don't.
I'd never block him, deep down he believes what he's saying, so it's just a difference of perspective and ideology. As a rule I only block trolls. Even though I'll likely never see eye to eye with him when it comes to politics, I actually do appreciate hearing his perspective from time to time no matter how wrong I believe it to be. Now that said, I do have to put an end to the conversations when they get just too ridiculous and out there but that'll happen.
