Mr. Brooks

I wouldn't get your hopes up. From a Huffington Post article: WASHINGTON ― The Senate voted Tuesday to confirm one of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees, Kyle Duncan, a lawyer who built his career on fighting abortion rights, LGBTQ rights and voting rights. Every Republican voted to confirm Duncan, 45, to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. One Democrat voted for him, Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.). There’s nothing particularly surprising about Republicans lining up behind a Republican president’s court pick. In fact, not a single GOP senator has voted against any of Trump’s judicial nominees, aside from one no vote cast by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). But what’s puzzling is that Republican senators who identify as pro-choice or pro-LGBTQ rights keep voting to confirm lifetime judges poised to chip away at those rights ― and the interest groups that praise these senators for their views seem to be ignoring their contrary votes on judges, whose decisions will affect generations of people. Take Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Both are pro-choice; Murkowski is a member of several GOP organizations that support abortion rights, including the Republican Majority for Choice, and Collins just won a big award from Planned Parenthood. “Throughout my service in the Senate, I have been a strong proponent of measures to promote and protect women’s health and expand all Americans’ access to quality health care,” Collins said in November when she received her award. And yet, both just voted to confirm Duncan, who led the legal fight against the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance coverage for contraceptives. He also wrote a brief in opposition to a Washington state law that required pharmacies to stock birth control, and co-authored a brief supporting Texas’ extreme restrictions on abortion that the U.S. Supreme Court later struck down as unconstitutional. They voted in July to confirm 53-year-old John Bush as a U.S. circuit judge. He had compared abortion to slavery and referred to them as the “two greatest tragedies in our country.” They voted in October to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, then 45, to the 7th Circuit. She had suggested Roe v. Wade was an “erroneous decision” and called the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit “an assault on religious liberty.” They voted in August to confirm Kevin Newsom, then 44, to the 11th Circuit. He had equated the rationale of Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 Supreme Court decision upholding slavery. They voted in December to confirm Leonard Steven Grasz, 56, as a U.S. circuit judge. He had compared the “personhood” of fetuses to the civil rights of Native Americans and African-Americans. He’d also argued that lower courts should be able to overrule Supreme Court decisions on abortion rights because “abortion jurisprudence is, to a significant extent, a word game.”

They can't. Republicans changed the Senate rules for confirmation to get Gorsuch confirmed. Filibuster is no longer an option.

They will confirm a replacement before the midterms.

He has insisted he didn't do it from the very beginning, outside of his plea agreement.

Except he will be replaced by someone who will ALWAYS vote with the right, and someone young enough to do so for the next 30 years. And the "few breadcrumbs" he threw to the left were pretty damn significant for the little guy, like Obamacare and gay marriage.

You might want to read my post where I explain it's entirely possible that he didn't commit the acts. My responses regarding his lack of contrition have been addressed to those who believe he did it, but should be forgiven.

That doesn't answer my question. I guess more generally, is it possible for any victim to forgive a perpetrator that insists crime never occurred? I would personally think that's not compatible, but again, I don't know.

Is it even possible for her to forgive him, when he insists it never happened? I don't know, that's not rhetorical, I'm genuinely asking.

For one, this thread is about Heimlich, not about the fine line of free press and privacy, which is a legitimate, but separate topic. That might be why that issue isn't being discussed much here. Secondly, I personally find a large difference between the mere reporting of the incident (which I don't in any way doubt is traumatic to the victim), and publicly calling her a liar. There are degrees to everything. Acknowledging that a rape victim is in fact a victim is one step towards recovery for them. The perpetrator attempting to deny them that step, by saying their victimization never happened is incredibly harmful.

The thought of a moderate or liberal leaving the bench during Trump's term has literally kept me up at night more than once. A hundred years from now, when historians look back at our smoldering, once great and powerful nation, they will consider this the pivotal moment in our catastrophic descent as a nation. I only hope that those who voted for Trump will be able to admit that they knowingly doomed us when they look back from their death beds.

His family, as well as the mother of the girl are on record in the SI piece confirming, explicitly, that he has never admitted what he did, outside of his plea agreement. So we do know the level of his contrition, both publicly and privately. As to your question, I'd say he gets to move on when he says he's sorry for what he did.

Huh? From the SI piece: "I pled guilty to it," he said of the child molestation charge. "But ever since that day and even before that, in court records and everything, I've denied ever committing the offense. I stand by that." Asked, minutes later, if he ever touched his niece inappropriately or sexually, Heimlich said, "No." Asked, then, if he's asserting that the girl repeatedly told a false story, he said, "Yes." "I can't speak to the accusation because I would just be guessing and I don't want to do something like that. I don't know why it would've come up." What, exactly, did I say that wasn't true?

Wow, that is a crazy lot of money to bank on potential turning into sustained production.

Telling national publications that the 6 year old girl you raped is a liar and is making the whole thing up is absolutely continuing to victimize her. Short of assaulting her again, I'm not sure I can even think of a more disgusting and reprehensible way of continuing to victimize her.

Couldn't we ask him to show contrition, and stop continuing to victimize the girl?

And he's now 22, and if he did do it, he's continuing to victimize the girl by calling her a liar and claiming it never happened.

The contact he admitted to happened when he was 15, not 13. The alleged contact from when he was 13 was dismissed as part of his plea. "Yet Heimlich did plead guilty to one felony count of child molestation between February and December 2011, when he was 15 and the girl was six." "As part of the plea agreement the first count, covering the interval when Luke was 13 and the child four, was dismissed."

I'm torn on this, because I don't know if he did it, and never will. It's possible that he really did take the plea, despite being innocent. As hard as it is to believe, since none of us think we'd ever admit to something we didn't do, it does happen. There have been many cases of irrefutable, DNA evidence exonerating people who confessed to crimes they didn't commit. However, it's also very possible that he did do it, and only claims he falsely confessed. In that case, he's shown absolutely no remorse or contrition, and is in fact actively continuing to victimize the girl by calling her a liar. If this is what happened, then he doesn't deserve a second chance, not until he shows contrition and stops victimizing the girl.

The sealing of his record was dependent upon him fulfilling the terms of his suspended sentence, which he failed to do.

That's a small price to pay to tip the Supreme Court in their favor.

Yep. If the shoe was on the other foot, the Republicans would have went scorched earth over it. The Dems play too nice sometimes.

It's the position he plays. Maybe he's a poor defender who would benefit from a move, but the team considers him a third baseman, and that's where he was developed in the minors.

Sano is a third baseman. How is he playing out of position?

Bad week for the Supreme Court. They also ruled that "crisis pregnancy centers" can lie and deceive pregnant women, and that Texas can gerrymander all they want. We'll be paying for Republicans stealing the open SCOTUS position for decades.

Lance Lynn had a FIP of 4.82 last year. I'd have rather had Mejia and the draft pick than Lynn. And that's not hindsight.