Senate Passes Bill That Lets the Government Destroy Private Drones (engadget.com)

On Thursday, the Senate passed the FAA Reauthorization Act, which, among other things, renews funding for the Federal Aviation Administration and introduces new rules for airports and aircraft. But the bill, which now just needs to be signed by the president, also addresses drones. From a report: And while parts of the bill extend some aspects of drone use -- such as promoting drone package delivery and drone testing -- it also gives the federal government power to take down a private drone if it's seen as a "credible threat." The wording comes from another bill, the Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018, which was strongly supported by the Department of Homeland Security and absorbed into the FAA Reauthorization Act. In June, as part of its argument as to why it needed more leeway when it comes to drones, the agency said that terrorist groups overseas "use commercially available [unmanned aircraft systems] to drop explosive payloads, deliver harmful substances and conduct illicit surveillance," and added that the devices are also used to transport drugs, interfere with law enforcement and expolit unsecured networks. Video -- What Happens When a Drone Hits an Airplane Wing?

Comments

Oh well, back to old school

[bobstreo]

I guess stealing a Cessna or dirigible or van, or semi and loading it up with fertilizer will never go out of style. /s

Re:Oh well, back to old school

[cascadingstylesheet]

I guess stealing a Cessna or dirigible or van, or semi and loading it up with fertilizer will never go out of style. /s

It at least reduces the size of the arsenal that can fly over walls and fences ...

Re:Oh well, back to old school

[cayenne8]

The trouble is, there are other provisions in there...that as I understand it, require EVERY drone operator (commercial or private) to pass a FAA test, and essentially be blessed by the FAA as a pilot, along with associated fees, etc.

However, it gets worse than that....the new law also now requires you to carry that license documentation with you at all times flying a drone, and any time any law enforcement (local, state, etc) wants to harass you, and see you flying a drone, they can stop you, require you to show your documentation and if you don't have it on you, can confiscate your drone with no due process and as far as I know, no rules on how to get it returned.

They may be able to just destroy it, I'm not sure.

Again, I may have misread the bill...but even if you have your 'license' on you....local authorities with the broadly worded bill, may be able to almost arbitrarily say your drone, no matter what it is doing....is a danger and force you to surrender it to them, or they can destroy it at will.

Sadly, the bill is so broadly worded, it can give the authorities WAY too much ability to interfere with your life and cause an encounter, and possibly lose you your property.

Of course...that would never be abused....[rolls eyes]

Re:Oh well, back to old school

[lgw]

So the bar is higher than flying a light plane? Insane. I guess theres nothing that we won't have a moral panic over.

Re:Oh well, back to old school

[whoever57]

How is any of this constitutional?

This allows people to be deprived of their property without any due process.

Re:Oh well, back to old school

[cayenne8]

How is any of this constitutional?

This allows people to be deprived of their property without any due process.

Well, apparently the legislators and entrenched bureaucracy no longer consider that when draft/passing laws and regulations.

Re:Oh well, back to old school

[GrumpySteen]

Civil forfeiture laws have been used to deprive people of their property without due process since the 1920s and prohibition, but they really stepped it up in the 80s with the war on drugs.

Good luck getting power-hungry politicians and police forces to give up that cash cow.

Re:Oh well, back to old school

[jeff4747]

How is any of this constitutional?

You have no Constitutional right to fly a drone. Airspace is inherently "public", so the government gets to regulate what happens there.

Much like you have no Constitutional right to drive a car on public roads - that's why you have a driver's license, and why the state can deny driver's licenses to people.

Re:Oh well, back to old school

[rtb61]

Just tp note, although this legilsation is buried with in FAA stuff, it has nothing to do with the FAA and is in fact tied to Homeload security, so all Federal lands, including national parks et al, basically nearly all public lands. Look what else was in there "A roadmap for a United States and coalition strategy to reestablish security and governance in Syria", a fucking roadmap to invade and take over the government of Syria, what the fuck does that have to do with the FAA. Not even trying to pretend to hide their intent to invade and take over in Syria and killing all who resist (dumb fuckers, you should have put good in front security and governance, so neutral, rather than imply an intent for military invasion and taking over the government of Syria to turn it into another Libya).

Note no mention for liability for taking down a drone ie target drone, disable drone, drone crashes into person directly or a person driving a car and kills them, well, tough luck for them and it is the drone owners fault. It is corrupt bullshit burying laws in unaffiliated legislation. What the fuck does the US FAA have to do with invading Syria and killing everyone who resists and anyone in their near vicinity.

We need more drones taken down

[OrangeTide]

I'd like to see more drones taken down. I'd also like a new federal program for private citizens to apply for a drone hunting permit.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[alvinrod]

You don't need a permit, at least not if you're in Kentucky and only blast the drones that come onto your property.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[jellomizer]

Because how dare people have a hobby!
Oh look a harmless drone flying around. I is following the rules, being used safely not spying on people. But lets shoot it down, because someone has a hobby!
We can't have people having a hobby, unless it is shooting stuff. Then in that case it is our god given right!

Re:We need more drones taken down

[OrangeTide]

Yeeehawww!

I wonder if I could get the same ruling in California too, as long as I don't shoot some film studio's drone. The courts are overly protective of Hollywood.

PS - yes, you can own firearms in California. it's not a big deal if you're away from the big coastal cities. You used to be able to open carry here in unincorporated areas until recently

Re:We need more drones taken down

[OrangeTide]

I guess don't trespass on my property. You can use the airspace 80 ft above my property all you like, as long as you stay in accordance to FAA rules. And ideally you should have joined the AMA and paying your dues towards liability coverage.

A few years ago my RC club had a plane's battery catch fire in a dry field, and luckily we were nearby to extinguish it. But if you're outside of a reasonable range because you're flying FPV illegally, I'm going to take your toy out of commission. I'll politely return the pieces to you. You can try taking me to court for the damages, but I'm confident it won't go well for you.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[myth24601]

Should be open season. If it is over your property and within range of birdshot, it is fair game.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[jellomizer]

Is this a common problem in your community?
Where I live, people usually fly drones on their property, or with permission above others. They normally don't want to pay hundreds-thousdands of dollars for a Drone, to have it just kinda fly all over the place just to create chaos.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[OrangeTide]

Is this a common problem in your community?

Happens a lot at the beach. But I'm not allowed to bring guns on the public beach. Also it might be upsetting if people were shooting in the air all the time, but it's Santa Cruz so a lot of weird shit goes down and nobody seems to care.

Where I live, people usually fly drones on their property, or with permission above others.

In urban areas people don't have acres of property. So they fly in parks and at beaches.

They normally don't want to pay hundreds-thousdands of dollars for a Drone, to have it just kinda fly all over the place just to create chaos.

We've reprimanded multiple members in our club for doing just this. They like to fly around illegally with FPV and make YouTube videos of their illegal flights. One guy had footage flying 10+ miles away while he sat in a lawn chair wearing his goggles. Made possible because he got some high powered VHF transmitter and a HAM license. He was legal for the FCC, but not following AMA guidelines or FAA regs.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[cayenne8]

Happens a lot at the beach. But I'm not allowed to bring guns on the public beach. Also it might be upsetting if people were shooting in the air all the time, but it's Santa Cruz so a lot of weird shit goes down and nobody seems to care....

In urban areas people don't have acres of property. So they fly in parks and at beaches....

The examples you are giving are people flying in public areas....ie, open to use BY the public.

That should cause you no harm since it isn't over your private land, but you seem to be arguing that it is...?

What's wrong with flying at a public beach?

Re:We need more drones taken down

[bblb]

No one cares about your hobby unless you're putting your drone where it shouldn't be... fly your drone into a no fly zone, it gets taken down. Keep your drone in your backyard, "hobby" your ass off all day and no one will care.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[PPH]

What's wrong with flying at a public beach?

Nothing. As long as you keep your drone above a minimum safe altitude. Crash your toy into a bunch of people and those blades can do a lot of damage.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[OrangeTide]

The examples you are giving are people flying in public areas....ie, open to use BY the public.

technically it's not permissible to fly drones in a public space without permission from the entity that controls that space (city, county, or state)

That should cause you no harm since it isn't over your private land, but you seem to be arguing that it is...?

The other example is flying over private land, see the part where I talk about people flying 10+ miles out. That's all hills and meadows, some of it part of the county's Open Spaces preserve, some of it private land. Many of the open spaces are under fire advisory so drones are often prohibited at those times, even when they aren't it's not a smart thing to do. As your drone setting off a wildfire makes you liable for civil penalties, and the AMA isn't going to step in and save your butt.

What's wrong with flying at a public beach?

It's legal at some beaches and not others. You must check the beach posting to determine if drones are allowed and at what times. In my earlier example it is not permitted without special permission for public safety reasons at a very crowded beach. But if you really want more detail there is a nice summary from the California Department of Parks and Recreation

Re:We need more drones taken down

[HornWumpus]

Most places you'll be a world of hurt for discharging a firearm in the city. As you should.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[iggymanz]

spying in people's windows a hobby? buzzing close to people's heads for a laugh? (like a coupe were doing in my neighborhood)

hobbyists like that need their toys broken. maybe a punch in the face too.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[thegarbz]

Typical American. The answer is always a gun.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[stephanruby]

Only a property owner or law enforcement should be allowed to shoot down a drone (under specific circumstances). There are safety issues to consider. A damaged drone can easily kill someone falling down from the sky.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[OrangeTide]

Doesn't mean a broken clock isn't right twice a day.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[OrangeTide]

It's theoretically possible for a falling drone to kill someone, but I would not classify it as easy.

Odds are probably higher for an accidentally shooting. Or for the drone pilot to chase his falling craft and get run over by not looking both ways before crossing the street.

Many of the ordinances that restrict drone(UAS) are to do with safety. It's not safe to fly them over highways for example. It's not safe to fly them over a redneck farmer's property. Lots of places you shouldn't be flying them.

Re:We need more drones taken down

[OrangeTide]

I have a 24 hour mechanical wrist watch. But I think it's safe to assume most people do not.

Supprises no one.

[Riceballsan]

Really this is the least of issues by any law enforcement I know of. I'd at least consider drones considered lower stakes than human life, and it doesn't seem like we have much trouble with laws allowing law enforcement or government agents to shoot humans that "might pose a threat".

Re:Supprises no one.

[Aighearach]

The funny part is only that some legislative drone thought it would be useful to add the language, when they can already destroy private property in any way they want if they determined it is part of a credible threat.

Heck, they could already shoot the operator if they thought the threat was imminent!

Re:Supprises no one.

[Gravis Zero]

I'd at least consider drones considered lower stakes than human life, and it doesn't seem like we have much trouble with laws allowing law enforcement or government agents to shoot humans that "might pose a threat".

I don't disagree but now what am I supposed to do with all these drone disguises I was going to sell to people to prevent them from being shot by the police? ;)

Re:Supprises no one.

[HornWumpus]

Its a nation wide statistic.

Cops steal on every interstate, they look for out of state plates just to steal any cash they find.

Re: "credible"

[cascadingstylesheet]

Grow up.

I have - I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Our society, however, is regressing into believing that certain kinds of allegations must mean that the accused is guilty unless proved innocent.

It matters very much what you think is credible, and how you determine that.

Ha ha

[Rick Schumann]

Drone fanbois, no doubt, will seethe at this.
You have no one to blame but yourselves, really; you failed to police your own sufficiently, and now drone owners who refused to behave apporpriately and not use their drones irresponsibly have brought the government down on all of you.
Enjoy playing with your drones in your backyards, that's about the only place you'll be allowed to use them now.

Don't hate the messenger, hate the message. I didn't do this to you, and hating on me won't change anything, so have a little dignity and don't.

Re:Ha ha

[Brett Buck]

I tried to point that out to the national model airplane organization (AMA), and that they needed to make a distinction between traditional models and drones - because *it was metaphysical certainty that drones were going to be heavily regulated* and nothing they could say was going to stop it. But no, they decided to embrace drone idiots just like everyone else. The result is *very likely* to wipe out most forms of RC gliders, large-scale, jet turbines, and the original form of model aircraft, free-flight (no control system at all) and require airmanship tests for everyon. This is likely to include *control-line*, which are tethered to the pilot and can never exceed 70 feet or fly outside a designated hemisphere close to the ground. Oh, and you may have to be 16 or 18 years old or more to take the test, so forget kids flying gliders in the park.

      Of course, it's all ultimately unenforceable, and will only be adhered to by the people who are *already responsible operator* and don't need regulation, and ignored by the idiots they are targeting.

        This is all a catastrophe for model airplane fliers

Re:Ha ha

[cayenne8]

...and require airmanship tests for everyon.

That IS a part of this recently passed law.

Everyone will have to pass a FAA pilot type test, and you are going to be required to have that license on you at ALL times you are flying, and any law enforcement type can stop you at any time they see you flying, and have an encounter, requiring you to show your license, and if not on you, can confiscate your equipment.

Re:Ha ha

[russotto]

Yes, they are requiring you to take a test. And you will be required to have proof of passage on you (but they don't call it a "license", or even an "airman's certificate"; one important distinction would be that it's not revocable). But the seizure and forfeiture provisions aren't in that part of the bill, they're in a separate section that concerns UAS which threaten DHS-protected facilities. So if you fly your model into a nuclear plant or sewage plant or any of a number of other facilities, they can take it. But if you're just flying around in a field with your unregistered model airplane without having taken a test, this bill does not allow them to seize the equipment. They can, however, hit you with civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation, and it doesn't take much creativity to come up with a bunch of violations for a single act.

Re:Ha ha

[Rick Schumann]

Here's the thing, just to be clear: when I was a kid, I built and flew model airplanes. If I were a kid now, I'd think drones were awesome and would want one; when they came out, I thought they were pretty cool and saw no downside. Then idiots started doing idiotic things with them, like invade people's privacy, fly them into wildfire areas and in the way of firefighting aircraft, flew them at airports and other places they don't belong, and I said "you people need to police your own better", meaning track these idiots down yourselves and LEAN ON THEM as hard as you have to, to make them understand they need to KNOCK IT OFF, but all I got was hate and insults for my words. Nobody policed themselves, idiots with drones said "Fuck the police, I'll do what I want", and now you have where things are today. It's all their own damned faults this is going this way, it didn't have to happen, and quite frankly it's a damned shame that something that's intrinsicly very cool is now ruined because a few selfish assholes couldn't behave responsibly. But the entire drone community needs to have it pounded into them that this is their fault for not stopping the problem themselves before it got to this point. At some point in the future things might get loosened up enough to make it fun and cool again, but it'll be a long while off, and when it does, they'll HAVE to police themselves, or they'll just make things even worse, maybe ban them entirely.

Re:Ha ha

[cayenne8]

But if you're just flying around in a field with your unregistered model airplane without having taken a test, this bill does not allow them to seize the equipment.

From my understanding of what was passed, it was so broadly written, that they indeed can interpret it to mean they can confiscate from you on the spot for any reason they deem "dangerous".....and we all know law enforcement will always 'err' on the side of broad powers for them.

Hell, there are still people in New Orleans from Katrina that never got their guns back, and that does directly against Bill of rights violations, you don't think a broadly worded FAA law won't take from you what they want when they want...?

Re:Ha ha

[vbdasc]

I'm sorry, but self-policing doesn't work. When you have a new cool toy that is powerful enough to be able to do real harm, there will be idiots abusing it, and a tough regulation will follow. That's the way of life.

Re:Ha ha

[Brett Buck]

Model airplane people have been self-policing, mostly successfully, for about 100 years and without drones/quadcopter/FPV, this issue would never have come up.

Re: "credible"

[Aighearach]

Try growing down, then. Obviously whatever you thought they meant by "grow up" isn't achieving the normative result.

Re: "credible"

[fluffernutter]

Personally I think a judge presiding over the highest court in the land, hired to be a legal and moral compass, should have to bear the burden of demonstrating they aren't scum. This isn't about guilty or innocent after all, he isn't being tried for crimes, he is going through a very strict job interview.

They couldn't do that before!?

[GameboyRMH]

I hate it when I first hear about cool and useful stuff in news stories about how it's no longer available...

Re: "credible"

[ArylAkamov]

Hah, yeah man. Evidence? Burden of proof? That shits for children who need to grow up.

Totally Failed TEST question.

[bussdriver]

Part of the INTERVIEW process is to test the candidate. The content of the actual question is not relevant. Would you steal a pencil from work? If you say never, you area a lying ass kisser who can not be trusted. No job for you.

Ask something irrelevant and perhaps embarrassing and it doens't matter if it is true or not if you act like a sniffling man baby. Aside from being caught in lies about things that are simply not worth lying about. Stop boofing your own head!

Reasonable grounds to drop him exist already; aside from the huge coverup games and smokescreen alone make somebody look so bad as to now allow it simply on the grounds it disrespects the whole process and the nation... and for what? If he was any good they have the time for an honest process but that isn't how it even began because they have real problems they are trying to avoid. Much more is being gotten away with in this disgrace.

If the man had any respect for the nation he would resign the nomination like so many patriots before him who weren't even responsible but as heads of departments symbolically took the blame and resign. If the cause matters more than himself, he'd bail out before it became too late and risk a like minded person getting the job.

Finally, innocent until proven guilty is not logical and is ONLY for the legal process. It's a precept. It has NOTHING to do with job interviews or politics! The whole basis for term limits is that politicians are guilty until proven innocent; it's all about where you want the error bias to exist. Attack ads WORK because of this as well; it tends to make people not vote but that means it's still working.

Re:Totally Failed TEST question.

[DivineKnight]

"Would you steal a pencil from work? If you say never, you area a lying ass kisser who can not be trusted."

So...how many pencils have you stolen from work?

Re:Totally Failed TEST question.

[HornWumpus]

He's got a link to the leftist version of Alex Jones as his SIG. Your time is better spent arguing with a brick, the brick is smarter and more self-aware.

Re:Totally Failed TEST question.

[bussdriver]

In a job interview question, ones like this are likely multiple choice so you just answer YES. If you over think it, then it gets complicated but such an answer can say plenty about you beyond just your honesty; it can show how honest or realistic you are about yourself and your limitations as well. How you justify something after the fact when it might actually matter; hints about how you shift blame, take responsibility, etc.

Re:Totally Failed TEST question.

[HornWumpus]

Alex Jones fans are no more self-aware than you.

Re: "credible"

[cascadingstylesheet]

Personally I think a judge presiding over the highest court in the land, hired to be a legal and moral compass, should have to bear the burden of demonstrating they aren't scum.

In response to any baseless accusation?

So if I had said that Ruth Ginsberg behaved inappropriately with me when I was in high school, but I had no evidence, she would have had to prove otherwise?

Because people never lie (or get others to lie) to achieve hugely valuable political goals?

Re: "credible"

[fluffernutter]

You're probably asking the wrong person, because I have a pretty clean record. Even so, I could envision a person who has done a great deal worse than me becoming a Supreme court justice. I don't care if they smoked or drank at an early age. What I can't understand is anyone who ever in their lives did not have the common sense to treat women with absolute respect becoming a Supreme court justice. You are just downplaying serious lack of judgement by calling it a minor lack of judgement.

Re: "credible"

[fluffernutter]

Ford is receiving death threats. You don't subject yourself to death threats if it isn't something that is very important to you.

Re:"credible"

[bblb]

Best comment I've seen on slashdot in months... bravo to you, sir.

Re: "credible"

[cayenne8]

The trouble is....

#MeToo is now weaponized.

All it takes against any man, is the mere accusation and *POOF* your life as you know it can be over with nothing more than that accusation.

This is an extremely powerful and dangerous weapon, and now it has been unleashed politically.

Re: "credible"

[HornWumpus]

If you've ever had a foggy memory morning while learning to drink, you are a rapist! All it takes is an accusation.

But don't worry, similar will happen to the next D SC nominee. Even if female.

Re: "credible"

[HornWumpus]

The USA is full of TDS sufferers.

The whole shitshow is very important to them. One of them is Ford's shyster. They have been frustrated and unhinged for two years now.

I have no doubt they would lie for their cause.

Re: "credible"

[lgw]

How is this modded up? Are people unfamiliar with Americas shameful history of acting on accusations without trial, or burden of proof? We do not need to return to those times.

Re: "credible"

[lgw]

Bullshit, Court of law or court of public opinion: treated as innocent until proven guilty. More than anyone else, a justice should uphold that standard,

Stop pretending that a shameful, transparent tactic to delay confirmation until after the election is anything else. Accusers that change their stories, whose claims are flatly denied by those they say are witnesses? These don't even rise to the level of needing a defense.

Re: "credible"

[lgw]

SCOTUS protection for abortion is the most important thing for a great many people. Worth many death threats.

Re: "credible"

[Sperbels]

totally unfair

We're talking about politics here. It's all unfair. You think Merrick Garland got treated fairly? And regardless of the fact that there's no evidence, her story certainly seems on the surface to be credible while his version looks weak. It's a popularity contest and Kavanaugh is losing it. They need to abandon this guy and find someone who isn't so badly tainted.

MUH GUNS! MUH DRONES! MUH FREEDUMBS!

[Anonymous Coward]

B-b-but the only thing that can stop GOVERNMENT TYRANNY is a good guy with a drone!!

Re: "credible"

[cascadingstylesheet]

So if I received death threats, that would prove that Ginsburg had got handsy with me?

Re: "credible"

[sexconker]

It's a popularity contest and Kavanaugh is losing it.

All signs point to him being confirmed this weekend. The worst part of all this is that I know almost nothing about him beyond this shitshow. For the 0.01% of air time his track record, career, etc. receive, we get nothing beyond a myopic left/right tally designed to label him as conservative and thus bad (or good, on that one network).

Re:Better just chop off your cock now!

[HornWumpus]

Say: 'Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh'.

Does that make you cry?

Wait until Ginsburg dies or is removed for senility, that's when the fun will really start!

Re: "credible"

[lgw]

It's modded up because that moron is trying to make a story about drones into some statement about women falsely accusing men of stuff. You should be modded down because your post about "accusations without trial" or "burden of proof" has zero to do with the government shooting down drones.

Welcome to Slashdot! Go ahead and make an account, it doesn't cost anything. I hope you find your time here enjoyable. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of "not reading TFA" and "every thread has its own topic" and "the mods are on crack, and not the good crack either".

And so it begins...

[Miles_O'Toole]

I wonder how long it will be before some evil bastard crams a drone full of a noxious substance and flies it to a location where the government will provide the means to scatter it all over a nice, wide area. How long would it take to clean up an airport contaminated with some kind of nasty, superfine powder?

Really, it's just a different kind of evolution.

Re:And so it begins...

[vbdasc]

How long would it take to clean up an airport contaminated with some kind of nasty, superfine powder?

Orders of magnitude less than the supermax prison term awaiting the evil bastard, methinks.

Re:And so it begins...

[Miles_O'Toole]

Maybe, maybe not. Assuming they caught him, of course.

The real problem

[Max_W]

is that a drone with camera gives too much power in hands of citizen journalists.

In the past all one needed a high fence and a guard, and not one could see an estate, a factory, a dump, etc.

Now it becomes much harder to hide issues.

Re:The real problem

[jeff4747]

You appear to have forgotten that private aircraft exist that are not drones.

Re:The real problem

[Max_W]

A manned aircraft cannot fly lower than 200 - 300 meters (depending on a country). It can fly only according to a flight plan. A manned aircraft produces enormous noise. It costs a lot of money, even renting or fueling one for an hour costs a lot of money. It weighs thousand of kilograms, while a drone weighs hundreds of grams, seven(!) orders of magnitude lower.

I read and view aerial photos (from a drone) of several cases when a public servant with a modest salary possessed a kind of royal property worth millions. I've never seen anything like this from a manned aircraft.

At the same time, sociologists claim that no society can exist without certain amount of accepted lies. Drones change it, they make it more difficult to obfuscate. It could be the main reason of the unprecedented attack on this technology.

Re: "credible"

[HornWumpus]

Enjoy the next SC nominee put up by the Ds.

This shit will never end now.

Re: "credible"

[No Longer an AC]

Regressing?

"It's a very scary time for young men in this country." - Donald Trump

I know, just ask the Central Park Five.

Accusations by Donald Trump

"Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts. I do not think so. I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer ... Yes, Mayor Koch, I want to hate these murderers and I always will. ... How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits? Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!" - Donald Trump

In decades past, they would have just been lynched. Instead they were exonerated in 2002, but did that stop Donald Trump?

As recently as 2 years ago., Trump was still proclaiming their guilt.

Re: "credible"

[No Longer an AC]

I guarantee you, the Senate will NOT even give fluffernutter a hearing, let alone confirm him to the Supreme Court.

Re: "credible"

[No Longer an AC]

A lot of that was covered prior to the allegations by Ford. People just weren't paying attention because legal arguments and Constitutional law just aren't as sexy as stories of attempted rape.

He has some "interesting" ideas about Presidential immunity for example.

Re: "credible"

[jeff4747]

Grown ups are able to differentiate between a legal proceeding and a job interview, and thus apply different standards to those situations.

Anybody can destroy a private...

[EzInKy]

...drone that is flying over the private property. There was a court case that settled that a while ago.

Re:right back at ya

[ArylAkamov]

Cool buzzwords, coward. Care to make an argument?

Re: "credible"

[El Cubano]

Ford is receiving death threats. You don't subject yourself to death threats if it isn't something that is very important to you.

You must have missed the part where either Senator Feinstein or Congresswoman Eshoo (or someone on their staffs) leaked the letter.

Dr. Ford did not subject herself to death threats. The Democrats helped her out on that one.

Re: "credible"

[dryeo]

Hey, a Hillary supporter. Guess you're pretty pissed off at all the accusations that were made at her, especially considering how often she got investigated and nothing was found.

Re: "credible"

[dryeo]

I thought it started a long time ago. Shit last election there were accusations of one of the candidates running a pedo ring from a pizza parlor.

Re: "credible"

[fluffernutter]

I don't know, I'm listening to the details Ford testified with. Her memory seems clear to me. She said she had one beer.

Re:"credible"

[vbdasc]

I, for one, welcome our new female overlords.

Re: "credible"

[hiroshimarrow]

That's right, your honor! I'd only had 2 beers! The tree my car was nudged up against ever so gently enough to total it came out of nowhere! And those corn stalks... well, those came from the drive through farmer's market where people wouldn't get out of my way. Now THOSE people should be charged!

Re: "credible"

[fluffernutter]

Some people are more believable than others.

Re: "credible"

[strikethree]

What I can't understand is anyone who ever in their lives did not have the common sense to treat women with absolute respect becoming a Supreme court justice.

Most children go through a stage where they slap their own mother in the face. Automatic disqualification to become Supreme Court judge? If not, why not? You said "ever in their lives".

I am going to go ahead and assume you did not mean toddlers. Then at what age?

Society chose 18. Deal with it.

Re: "credible"

[HornWumpus]

Which is why Ds believe those accusing Rs, and vice versa.

Re: "credible"

[HornWumpus]

Are you under 14? Otherwise you should remember most of your HS keggers.

Re: "credible"

[HornWumpus]

Now it's in the senate. It will never leave.

Just accept that every future SC nominee will be confirmed despite an unprovable 11th hour alligation.