Posted on 10/13/2019 4:24:45 PM PDT by Trump20162020
That’s all we need, another sleepy Republican swamp creature.
Not a fan of Roy Moore, but he would get my vote before Sessions the Swamp creature
Here’s a FACT from an Alabamian:
Even if Roy Moore was the nominee, he would win in 2020.
Why?
Because at THIS election, President Trump is on the ballot.
Think about it.
Jones won on a special election that over half of the Trump voters from the year before didn’t participate in. And Jones had the same number of democrats Hillary won the year before. Still, Jones only won by 21,000 votes, or 1.7% of the total votes.
Imagine all those Trump voters returning to the polling place and voting for Trump and then FOR democrat Jones?
It’s not going to happen.
Not a single Trump voter will vote for a democrat. Well, hardly any.
Even if Roy Moore was the nominee, he would win in 2020.Why?
Because at THIS election, President Trump is on the ballot.I’m not from Alabama, but what you say makes perfect sense.
I can agree with the sentiment that it would be good to have a younger Republican in that seat, but I also have a bee in my bonnet about the way Moore was treated by the press - namely, pretty much the way Kavanaugh was treated.
There are two fundamental problems: first, the use of testimony to a “recovered” memory as if it were a source of truth. The process of “recovering” a memory - if done in open court - would have the defense lawyer rightly screaming bloody murder. It is no better to have it done in private, behind a HIPPA screen and therefore utterly kept from public scrutiny. It is that much the worse.
A “recovered” memory is indeed a “memory," in the sense that the person who is afflicted with it absolutely believes it. Which makes her - it’s always a woman - a devastating witness. The trouble is that such a memory is not probative. If the defendant is very lucky, he may be able to absolutely disprove it. But it is in the nature of the “recovered” memory that it refers to a distant enough past that the defendant has to be pretty lucky to be able to reconstruct the facts and prove that the “recovered” memory is false.
That alone is quite enough for me to say that the Moore and Kavanaugh “prosecutions” were utterly unjust and baseless.
The other problem is that back in 1964 the Warren Court unanimously pulled a boo-boo called the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision. That is what prevents public figures from suing for libel. And IMHO it is just as wrong as the 1988 Morrison v. Olson decision. Which would also have been unanimous but for the dissent of then-freshman Justice Antonin Scalia. History so quickly and thoroughly discredited Morrison that nobody thinks it is good law. And IMHO the same should be true of Sullivan.
One thing wrong with Sullivan is that it says that the First Amendment requires that decision. But - wait for it - according to Scalia, the First Amendment did not establish freedom of the press. What!!! Blasphemy!!! But in historical context, it is the stone cold truth. The point is that freedom of the press already existed before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified - so in that sense, the First Amendment did not create freedom of the press. What it did was to preserve “the” freedom of the press as it already existed.
Ever wonder why the First Amendment didn’t obliterate pornography laws and libel laws? That is the point of the “the freedom” of the press - the entire Bill of Rights was crafted to not change any right but to keep any right from being changed. So when the Warren Court claimed that 1A required a change to libel law that could not possibly be the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.