Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 279

Thread: Should Kavanaugh be confirmed for SCOTUS?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918

    Default Should Kavanaugh be confirmed for SCOTUS?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Democrats launched a simultaneous attack against Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday, casting the president as a “co-conspirator” whose Supreme Court nominee has been tainted.

    ***Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) canceled her Thursday meeting with Kavanaugh, citing the president’s alleged legal troubles. She accused Trump of being “an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal matter” and suggested he “does not deserve the courtesy of a meeting with his nominee—purposely selected to protect, as we say in Hawaii, his own okole.”***

    Bwhahahahahha. This dumbass thinks Kavanaugh isn't going to get confirmed? ROFL

  2. #2
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,642
    It's not like he's one of the least popular nominees in modern history.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...harriet-miers/

    I see you're still prioritizing "making liberals cry" to caring about clearly illegal acts committed by the president and his posse of jail birds.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    It's not like he's one of the least popular nominees in modern history.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...harriet-miers/

    I see you're still prioritizing "making liberals cry" to caring about clearly illegal acts committed by the president and his posse of jail birds.
    You are delusional.

  4. #4
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Er, I'm pretty sure the definition of that word comes closer to describing your posts over the past few years.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Er, I'm pretty sure the definition of that word comes closer to describing your posts over the past few years.
    He gets confirmed before midterms and anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or delusional. Outside of something truly crazy happening (like Roman Polanski levels of evil uncovered) it will be a victory lap.

  6. #6
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Bwhahahahahha. This dumbass thinks Kavanaugh isn't going to get confirmed? ROFL
    Obama's nominee didn't get confirmed. Can't Democrats repeat the same trick? Can't they filibuster him out?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  7. #7
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Obama's nominee didn't get confirmed. Can't Democrats repeat the same trick? Can't they filibuster him out?
    Afaict the only way Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed is if a couple of Republican senators remember their obligations to their country, to the rule of law, to their conscience and to justice. If the past couple of years are any indication, Republican senators have abdicated practically all their responsibilities, and their character is only marginally better than Lewkowski's.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  8. #8
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,642
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Obama's nominee didn't get confirmed. Can't Democrats repeat the same trick? Can't they filibuster him out?
    That tool has been removed for Supreme Court nominations. And chances are he will be confirmed. But if scandals against Trump keep piling on, who knows.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #9
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,078
    Can't remember which thread it was in which Lewkowksi was gloating that Kavanaugh was definitely going to be confirmed. Interesting today then to see Republicans Corker and Flake (who can tip the balance if they go with the Democrats) calling for a delay.

    Considering how badly Trump has treated Flake - and how the last Congress refused to confirm Obama's pick - wouldn't be ironic if Flake's final act as a Senator is to delay confirmation until after the midterms and a potentially Democrat-majority Senate could be elected?

    EDIT: Indeed Flake can tip the balance himself while the vote is before the Senate Judiciary Committee as the Republicans only have an 11-10 majority there including him, if he goes against Kavanaugh it becomes 10-11 against. Maybe Trump should have treated Flake better?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  10. #10
    RB, I think it's still pretty likely he'll be confirmed. If he isn't, Collins or murkowski are the most likely culprits, not Flake or Corker.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Can't remember which thread it was in which Lewkowksi was gloating that Kavanaugh was definitely going to be confirmed. Interesting today then to see Republicans Corker and Flake (who can tip the balance if they go with the Democrats) calling for a delay.

    Considering how badly Trump has treated Flake - and how the last Congress refused to confirm Obama's pick - wouldn't be ironic if Flake's final act as a Senator is to delay confirmation until after the midterms and a potentially Democrat-majority Senate could be elected?

    EDIT: Indeed Flake can tip the balance himself while the vote is before the Senate Judiciary Committee as the Republicans only have an 11-10 majority there including him, if he goes against Kavanaugh it becomes 10-11 against. Maybe Trump should have treated Flake better?
    Trump probably should have however if Flake flakes that would be the ultimate of putting self before country. Flake knows that Kavanaugh is built from the mold of conservative justices he would vote for. The vote is also ceremonial, the full senate can vote regardless of the recommendation by the committee. The number to look for is the final vote. If Flake flips it's still 50/50 they would need another Republican flip AND no Democratic senator flip. And there are several up in red states in 2018.

  12. #12
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,078
    Just because someone is of the right mold doesn't mean they should be improperly given a job for life without proper vetting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #13
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Flake will continue to live up to his name and do absolutely nothing unless things change dramatically. He doesn't want to be the guy who got in the way of raising a conservative justice to SCOTUS, even if said justice is a slimy lying creep who might help Trump evade justice.

    Some of the takes from prominent conservative pundits have been downright revolting. The same people who would gladly see young black kids punished by jail or even death, or shrug when innocent black kids are murdered for looking suspicious, are now trying to tell us that a 17-y-o assaulting a 15-y-o is just an example of boyish antics, youthful indiscretions that must be forgiven and that have no bearing on his character a few decades later. These people are pathetic.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  14. #14
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,078
    They'd be better off arguing innocent until proven guilty, statute of limitations etc but then those would be principles of justice that they want to deny others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  15. #15
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Irrelevant. This is not a trial. There is no statute of limitations.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  16. #16
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Irrelevant. This is not a trial. There is no statute of limitations.
    There also has not been much in the way of evidence.

  17. #17
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,078
    No but the principles behind the statute of limitations any why it exists are relevant. But that would require evoking those principles, principles that are so cavalierly ignored elsewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  18. #18
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    There also has not been much in the way of evidence.
    Supporting the claim of assault? Certainly not, other than the reasonably credible testimony of the alleged victim, to be weighed against the denial of a man who has already lied or otherwise attempted to mislead legislators and the public on several other matters. You're not likely to get much more. Even if it had been reported shortly after the event, there would've been scant evidence, if any.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    No but the principles behind the statute of limitations any why it exists are relevant. But that would require evoking those principles, principles that are so cavalierly ignored elsewhere.
    No, those principles are not relevant because, if he did assault her, then he is lying about it now. Lying is of course not criminal in the general sense, but it is a current violation of trust to which the notion of a statute of limitations is not yet applicable. If he had assaulted a girl when he was 17 and were to own up to it now, that would be a different matter, although my personal belief would be that such an act would be unacceptable for someone in as a high a position as a SCOTUS justice. However, if he is not innocent, then he is lying about it right now, just as he has lied about other things.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  19. #19
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    No, those principles are not relevant because, if he did assault her, then he is lying about it now. Lying is of course not criminal in the general sense, but it is a current violation of trust to which the notion of a statute of limitations is not yet applicable. If he had assaulted a girl when he was 17 and were to own up to it now, that would be a different matter, although my personal belief would be that such an act would be unacceptable for someone in as a high a position as a SCOTUS justice. However, if he is not innocent, then he is lying about it right now, just as he has lied about other things.
    Those principles are relevant now because its hard to know and try fairly whether he is lying or not. There's little in the way of evidence as it stands either way and it is hard to find evidence either way now.

    There are three main principles behind the statute of limitations:
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    1: A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
    2: By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
    3: Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.
    2 absolutely applies. 3 and 1 could apply too.

    Remember the principle should always be innocent until proven guilty, so unless he's proven guilty he's not lying about it now and its hard to prove him guilty now after so long. However that would come stronger if it were coming from people who always believe in innocent until proven guilty and not shoot first and let God sort them out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  20. #20
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,642
    This is not a court of law.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,979
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    This is not a court of law.
    I would like my supreme court justices to be beyond reproach. Not merely presumed innocent.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Just because someone is of the right mold doesn't mean they should be improperly given a job for life without proper vetting.
    He was properly vetted.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Supporting the claim of assault? Certainly not, other than the reasonably credible testimony of the alleged victim, to be weighed against the denial of a man who has already lied or otherwise attempted to mislead legislators and the public on several other matters. You're not likely to get much more. Even if it had been reported shortly after the event, there would've been scant evidence, if any.
    So Bill Clinton is a rapist right?

    The timing of the claim and the political stakes of the claim all point toward this being about politics and not about if he did it or not. Credible claim my ass. Democrats know the claim is bogus with no evidence to support it but they don't care.

    This isn't a situation like with Roman Polanski who admitted to raping a 13 year old child and then was defended by half of Hollywood because he makes good movies. This isn't a situation where there is DNA evidence. Or video evidence. Or a history of these types of behaviors. This is literally one person's word who chose to speak up at the eve of confirmation hearing to the SCOTUS.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    The timing of the claim and the political stakes of the claim all point toward this being about politics and not about if he did it or not.
    The claim is 6 years old dumbass. That admittance is one of the few remarks the white House legal circle has made concerning this slime ball.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  25. #25
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So Bill Clinton is a rapist right?
    I mean... yeah, probably?
    Truth serves them
    Embrace and defend her case
    Part flattery, part threats
    "For those who cling to this domination will partake in its fall"


  26. #26
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So Bill Clinton is a rapist right?
    Er, probably? So don't nominate him for SCOTUS?

    The timing of the claim and the political stakes of the claim all point toward this being about politics and not about if he did it or not. Credible claim my ass. Democrats know the claim is bogus with no evidence to support it but they don't care.
    *shrug* The claim is credible enough to be heard. That there is no clear physical evidence is usually the case with attempted sexual assault even a day after the attempt so in this respect these allegations are indistinguishable from the vast majority of similar cases.

    This is literally one person's word who chose to speak up at the eve of confirmation hearing to the SCOTUS.
    She mentioned it to therapists in 2012 and in 2013. She went to legislators with this information in July, when it became clear this person might attain a position she felt he was not worthy of because of what she says he did to her. She did not want to go public but was forced to nevertheless. If a man victimizes only one person, with no witnesses against him, only one person can be expected to speak against him. Of course, it's possible that this man victimized others as well, and it might even be possible some of them were conscious and remember what he did. Whether or not they'll choose to make themselves known is uncertain esp. given how the right-wing propaganda army have attempted to smear Ford, using false information about her parents and about her record as an educator.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    I mean... yeah, probably?
    I probably should have gone with Brian Banks.

  28. #28
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    She mentioned it to therapists in 2012 and in 2013. She went to legislators with this information in July, when it became clear this person might attain a position she felt he was not worthy of because of what she says he did to her. She did not want to go public but was forced to nevertheless. If a man victimizes only one person, with no witnesses against him, only one person can be expected to speak against him. Of course, it's possible that this man victimized others as well, and it might even be possible some of them were conscious and remember what he did. Whether or not they'll choose to make themselves known is uncertain esp. given how the right-wing propaganda army have attempted to smear Ford, using false information about her parents and about her record as an educator.
    It's also possible this man victimized no one.

  29. #29
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    It's also possible this man victimized no one.
    That is certainly possible, but the point is that Lewk's observation does not help distinguish a false allegation from the vast majority of true allegations.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  30. #30
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    That is certainly possible, but the point is that Lewk's observation does not help distinguish a false allegation from the vast majority of true allegations.
    Then perhaps we could look at his history and see if there have been other allegations made against him. As far as I know, there have not been. Certainly - based on the reporting I have seen, he does not appear to be a Roy Moore.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •