Jump to content

Justice Kennedy Retires, July 31.


Recommended Posts

Met, I was merely commenting that I could understand and empathized with Kavanaughs and Fords emotional outbursts, but also that I had an issue with the lefts revenge conspiracy that was offered by Kavanaugh. Perhaps my statement could have been worded differently, considering you are hung up on the phrasing, but honestly I am flabbergasted at your need for me to justify what I wrote.

 

As for that phrasing:

 

Emotionally Appropriate was a word coupling I was using to describe in short the visual and audible display of emotion combined with the setting and retelling of the alleged assault.

 

As for your armchair QB comparison:

 

I also wrote using obvious first person terms; I found, I thought. At no time did I insist what was or is, nor did I offer myself as an expert or a relation. In my noted edited post I detailed things about my personal history, I decided that was not necessary and removed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hey Fozzie, it might be a little too early, but I have your new avatar picked out (assuming you don't think it's so awesome that you want to use it whichever way it goes, anyway)....    

How are the Dems going to stop it? Unless the Republicans want to keep it as a campaign issue, it's going to be done before the midterms. Even if it isn't resolved before then, I wouldn't want to bet

I didn't believe conspiracies when that Kenyan was in office.

Okay, I've come to a few conclusions. First, I believe Kavanaugh is innocent of the accusations. The inability of anyone else to put him at the scene, the shifting story from the accuser and the gaps therein, Kavanaugh's calendar leaving little room for this encounter to occur, and the behavior of Ford's team in coordinating with the Democrats, including the delay for flying and her claiming not to be aware that there was an option to testify from home leave this well below any threshold to convict.

 

Second, I can't say that I'm 100% sure. It's here where I again get annoyed that Ford's testimony was left to stand. It was the responsibility of someone to ask tough questions about the holes within the story and see if it falls apart or can withstand scrutiny. Without that I can't make a better judgement beyond a critique of her performance in rather superficial terms.

 

Third, I would let Kavanaugh go if I could. It's something of a sin because it allows for the destruction of a man, but such things happen in politics all the time (and while we're at it, the politics of putting him on the court are bad as well). As I said, I can't be 100% he's innocent and I can't say I'd like to allow someone guilty of such a charge on the court, and many people will genuinely believe he's guilty due to an accuser that appeared credible and received no challenge. Having him on the court will hurt its credibility going forward. And while I believe the Supreme Court could use a bit more side-eye from the public, this is not the way I'd like it to come about. It also discourages other potential nominees from putting themselves through this. But, alas.

 

That said, I can't blame anyone for wanting to move forward.

 

Fourth, judiciary committee hearings for Supreme Court seats should be abolished as direct punishment to the Democrats for the way this has been handled. Democrat antics during this one have demonstrated that they serve no useful purpose beyond giving politicians a platform for grandstanding. This is the 6th one I have watched, and none have risen above the level of political theater. Perhaps better work is done on the lower courts, but the Supreme Court with the cameras in view make for a recipe of nothing good.

 

Fifth, a new set of rules for judicial nominees should be created in a bipartisan manner, setting consistent rules for documents and other procedural matters, and creating automatic mechanisms for floor votes after a certain period of time.

 

Graham's part in the hearing was terrible. It's like they're pandering to this very small population that they want to side with because they consider them their core voters.

 

Graham, as McCain's leading acolyte is a self-righteous ass first and foremost and has a long history of bipartisanship when it comes to judicial nominees. I have little doubt that he believes every word he says.

 

If he thought Republicans were in the wrong, he wouldn't hesitate to go rogue. He's never had a problem doing it before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

How about this: if the first nominee isn't approved on the first vote, without any type of successful filibuster, the winner gets to pick an avatar for the loser and it stays up for one month.

That sounds fun, but let's verify what Spam says. I'd do it now, but I am short on time at the moment.

 

Otherwise, I'm in!

 

Hey Fozzie, it might be a little too early, but I have your new avatar picked out (assuming you don't think it's so awesome that you want to use it whichever way it goes, anyway)....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

How about this: if the first nominee isn't approved on the first vote, without any type of successful filibuster, the winner gets to pick an avatar for the loser and it stays up for one month.

That sounds fun, but let's verify what Spam says. I'd do it now, but I am short on time at the moment.

 

Otherwise, I'm in!

Hey Fozzie, it might be a little too early, but I have your new avatar picked out (assuming you don't think it's so awesome that you want to use it whichever way it goes, anyway)....

 

new-fashion-unicorn-balloons-happy-birthday.jpg

We'll find out soon!

 

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2015/10/13/13-donald-trump.w529.h529.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how the Democrats spent weeks asking for an FBI "investigation". Republicans said that's not how the FBI works, all they can do is a background check. It's not going to amount to anything but a few extra interviews. Democrats whine, Flake flakes, and Democrats get their way. A week later the FBI is done. It turns out exactly as Republicans pointed out it would weeks ago and Democrats are complaining because it pretty much meant nothing and the report didn't add much.

 

Actually, it's not funny. It's just the strategy of delay. Keep asking for seemingly reasonable things that add up to putting things off to forever. They knew exactly what would happen when they asked. At least this well be over in about 36 hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Rand Paul's wife has mentioned that they had increased police presence around their house because of the nuts going to their HOUSE. I vote and I feel passionate about some subjects but I would never sink to threatening someones family. I think both sides should take a step back. Let's just ask Kavanaugh to withdraw and we'll come back to it later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Rand Paul's wife has mentioned that they had increased police presence around their house because of the nuts going to their HOUSE. I vote and I feel passionate about some subjects but I would never sink to threatening someones family. I think both sides should take a step back. Let's just ask Kavanaugh to withdraw and we'll come back to it later.

Democrats are acting badly so we should step back and give them what they want... fuck all of that. Just keep it to the ballot box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh's just the latest manifestation. Go ask Ajit Pai, Scott Pruitt, or any number of relatively low functionaries about lines being crossed. Heck, ask Steve Scalise.

 

Of course, we had a "national conversation" about our overheated rhetoric when Gabby Giffords was shot by a random schizophrenic because it could be used to try and shame the Tea Party protests which were mostly restricted to actual political events.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For Poe and Met, how big of a deal would you rate it if he was lying about his drinking while testifying? A few classmates who claim to be friends have claimed that he was lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only heard the stories that there are people who claim that he undersold how much he drank. I haven't seen specifics. From what I have heard the claims don't don't prove that Kavanaugh purjerd himself based on his testimony.

 

Now if you're asking how would I feel if he was a sloppy drunk without purjuring himself, I have no opinion either way. I don't drink and my experience with excessive drinkers comes from college and a couple of friends. One became an alcoholic and the other curbed his habits and has gone on to a productive life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh has shown that he doesn't have the ability to be impartial, to me. I mean Clarence Thomas made a similar statement at his hearing about how Anita Thomas' statement hurt his family but he was less - strident? I think Kavanaugh is definitely an alcoholic and needs help. Some tiny bit of empathy would go further than this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only heard the stories that there are people who claim that he undersold how much he drank. I haven't seen specifics. From what I have heard the claims don't don't prove that Kavanaugh purjerd himself based on his testimony.

 

Now if you're asking how would I feel if he was a sloppy drunk without purjuring himself, I have no opinion either way. I don't drink and my experience with excessive drinkers comes from college and a couple of friends. One became an alcoholic and the other curbed his habits and has gone on to a productive life.

I mean hypothetically, if there is enough evidence that Kavanaugh perjured himself, how would you feel? Alleged former drinking buddies sent a letter specifically stating that he lied about the amount that he drank, including being blackout drunk.

 

1) Is there any evidence that would convince you? Enough testimony? Photographs? Video (unlikely, but technically possible)?

 

2) Should it matter? He's trying to cover up youthful indiscretion, so would it be disqualifying if he did in lie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

51-49 to limit debate. Murkowski voted no, Manchin voted yes. My guess is Collins is going to weigh the politics to the last moment, but she'll vote to confirm. Flake's a guaranteed vote in my mind. Unless Manchin flips, it looks like a done deal with a lot of artificial drama.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

I don't know. There is a chance Flake may vote no (I know he's said yes) just to stick it to Trump. Those guys hate each other. Either way it goes, it will be close, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to say yes it would matter if this hadn't morphed into the freak show that it has. Of course if it didn't come to this there is no questioning about how much he drank in high school and college. It has become so much more. I had always believed that what Dr Ford claimed was possible, just not to the veracity that was described. I'll explain that later because I have stuff to do right now. But when people go to crazy extremes it just pisses me off. Example? Spam just called the man an alcoholic! From what evidence?!? Because she thinks so. That's why we are where we are right now. Because people think so! Without any shred of evidence! About someone they don't know!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feinstein shouldn't have held onto it for so long. That's why this has been a freak show. She deserves a lot of flack for it, but she's probably pretty safe. If she had gotten it out in July or early August, we'd be having a completely different conversation. Oddly, it probably would've been more successful at that time instead of being an 11th hour attempt. Either they didn't believe Ford or they were waiting to use her, and either way it stinks and helped galvanize Republicans.

 

If it'd come out sooner, Graham would've had to find a different topic for his righteous indignantion. Hell, Kavanaugh might've been the focus of it, had the hearing continued in the same fashion. I think that we very well could be looking at more investigation into possible perjury, as well. Instead the Democrats played politics but they're woefully out of their league when it comes to having backbone and a cohesive agenda. Instead of bringing a knife to a gun fight, they brought a toothpick to a steel door.

 

As for people making assumptions, I agree. There's plenty of room for disagreement over real things. Why make stuff up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...