Kavanaugh
-
@DoubleDD When Bill Clinton is nominated for the Supreme Court and I’m not a high schooler who didn’t care about politics your question will start to make sense.
-
Lets face it the Dem party and Libs were never going to be happy with the Kavanaugh confirmation. It was just going to be one endless investigation after another. At some point you just have to say enough is enough.
Have a good day.
-
@DoubleDD thank you for my daily Fox News briefing.
-
@DoubleDD Face it: you have no answers to the specifics approx and I have been attempting to bring up with you. Look at our posts, look at yours. We are discussing facts; you are making ideological attacks on other people.
We win!
-
DoubleDD said:
Lets face it the Dem party and Libs were never going to be happy with the Kavanaugh confirmation. It was just going to be one endless investigation after another. At some point you just have to say enough is enough.
Have a good day.
Funny, I don’t see Democrats penalizing their caucus members that would confirm him unlike what happened with Merrick Garland. Weird.
-
@DoubleDD don’t forget he threw ice at someone !!
-
approxinfinity said:
@Woodrow I have a problem with him lying under oath. To me that’s a disqualifier from taking a lifetime seat on the highest court in the country… i also believe that as a blackout drunk which has been confirmed by many people It is easy to believe three women that are accusing him with nothing to gain and everything to lose from doing so. If you want to turn a blind eye to all of that then I guess that’s your prerogative.
He can’t even resist lying in a fake apology.
-
I want you guys to ask yourself a question. You don’t have to answer here. And I mean this not as a snark but I just hope you have a few instances that come to mind. I want you to ask yourself “when have I disagreed with Fox News?” I can ask myself the same of any news source I frequent and I have examples.
-
mayjay said:
@DoubleDD You probably watch her more than I do since my sum total of viewing Maddow over, say, the past 3 years is literally at most 20 minutes, but thanks for proving you are making up straw arguments.
As to law schools being captured by some left wing educational conspiracy, you will find that law professors are largely not part of that. And the signers of the letter range widely in political orientation. Good job ignoring Stevens.
I am curious: how did the evil liberal conspirators manage to find Ford, convince her to bring a charge that raises wild drunkenness allegations against someone whose own later-produced materials describe himself and others as an obnovious drunk, manufacture 2 therapists’ 5 year old notes, train her to pass a polygraph, and successfully coach her in testifying convincingly, all in a 6 week period of time?
More importantly, why is lying at a Senate hearing not important?
They even set up psychology sessions many years ago because they have a time machine and knew this nomination was coming. Very ingenious, poor Republicans never stood a chance with the Democrats having a time machine.
-
mayjay said:
@DoubleDD Every demand?
Let’s see, producing documents of work he did as hatchet man for Starr?..no.
More time to review the documents produced the night before the first scheduled vote?..barely, only because of other issues.
Subpoenaing other witnesses involved in the alleged behavior?..no.
Comprehensive investigation by the FBI before having Ford and Kavanaugh testify?..no.
Comprehensive FBI investigation after the hearing, including direct interviewing of F and K, and interviewing dozens of people who contacted the FBI with info?..no.
Releasing those prior FBI investigations about which there is a dispute as to how absolving they are?..no.
Releasing this investigation, or even the directive the FBI was given in conducting it?..no.
Yep, the Republucans have bent over backwards to bring transparency to the process.
Looks like no answers for this one…
-
DoubleDD said:
I’m not sure why? How much Kavanaugh drank as a teenager has anything to do with him being a supreme court Justice?
Are you guys going to be this hard when the Dem party has a pick for the supreme court? Yea I didn’t think so.
Or is this all smoke and mirrors. Just trying to hold the seat open till after the midterms?
I’m as much of a moderate as anyone on this board. I just posted in another thread about how much I like Trump’s tariffs.
So quit trying to put me in a box when I am as objective as anyone on this board. I will absolutely criticize any Supreme Court Justice Candidate, conservative or liberal, for lying. I have made other posts on this subject that have said if he was just honest about being a teenager who drank this would have moved right on through.
To be clear, I don’t give a shit what he lied about. I care that he lied. On the stand, under oath… When he is supposed to be one of 9 people in this country in a position of pure integrity. The fact that you could care less if he is a liar says everything about you and the Republican’s that are backing him. You don’t give a shit about the integrity of the Supreme Court. You just care that the Republicans get a win. And that is the problem with the two party system.
-
So look, I’m in favor of them moving on to the next candidate when that person will be just as much of a Republican attack dog. This isn’t about politics for me, it’s about the fact that he is a pathological liar.
-
Why Kavanaugh? That’s the real question for Republicans here. It’s not like Kavanaugh is the only conservative judge that could be nominated to the Supreme Court. There are at least two dozen justices out there with the type of background, as well as being very conservative in their rulings, that they could easily take Brett Kavanaugh’s place.
The GOP could have asked the President to pull the Kavanaugh nomination the instant the allegations surfaced and confirmed another conservative judge, even without any Democratic votes because the GOP has the majority. Instead, they insist that it has to be Kavanaugh despite the issues that have arisen, and despite the backlash it is causing, and despite his own handling of this.
When Clarence Thomas faced harassment allegations, you did not see him fly off the handle and go on an explosive, angry rant during his confirmation hearings.
Again, I ask simply - Why Kavanaugh? The GOP wants a conservative court. There are other judges that would be just as conservative, and some that would likely be even more conservative than Kavanaugh. If the goal is simply a conservative majority on the court, there are probably 20 other judges out there that could accomplish that goal.
So why Brett Kavanaugh?
-
John Cornyn is a piece of work.
“What good that could come out of this is if more women come forward with [allegations of sexual assault]”… So they too can be ignored.
-
Woodrow said:
@DoubleDD don’t forget he threw ice at someone !!
Yea all common sense goes out the window with these guys. But they are great KU basketball fans.
Funny thing he admitted under oath that he drank to much at times as a teenager. Yet somehow he lied? Just another claim without any evidence. I guess.
-
C-SPAN is showing Dick Durbins response, CNN and Fox are not
-
Its a good question you ask. Can’t say I really know. Though I can say contrary to popular belief by many among here. That Kavanaugh was more than qualified to be a supreme court justice. His judicial record is quite good, and is respected by many of his profession from both sides of the aisle.
My guess is the timing of the nominee and the political perception that would follow. Remember the Ford allegations didn’t break until he was about to be confirmed. With midterms coming not sure the Reps wanted to take the chance of starting over with a new nominee. As they were fearful of losing control of the House and the Senate. Making it impossible for a Trump nominee from ever making it to the Supreme Court.
-
Like Durbin said, according to the Republican narrative Ford is both a credible person and this is also a smear campaign. She’s either telling the truth or she isn’t. But they don’t need to choose which it is because they know Republican voters don’t care. Somehow Ford is credible but Kavanaugh is a good man that doesn’t lie. Its all magic.
-
To each it’s own. If you want to punish a person without any evidence and solely of the mere testimony of one person. Then that is your prerogative.
-
@DoubleDD do you know the following terms, boofing, Devil’s Triangle, and fffff?
-
@DoubleDD there are glaring omissions in your world view.
-
More of an opinion thought here. I wander if Grassly wouldn’t have stolen the Garland pick if things wouldn’t be so hostile on the Kavanaugh. pick. Just a thought.
Sometimes in life you reap what you sow.
-
-
@approxinfinity you’re wasting your breath, if God came down and told Dble d the facts, he still wouldn’t see them.
-
Charles Grassley is a mysogynistic piece of shit.
-
Crimsonorblue22 said:
@approxinfinity you’re wasting your breath, if God came down and told Dble d the facts, he still wouldn’t see them.
And what facts are those Crimson?
-
@DoubleDD Ok. Which piece of information am I failing to account for? Not which opinion or rhetoric I’m disagreeing with, which information am I ignoring? For instance,the fact that you repeatedly have referred to the one person accusing Kavanaugh, ignoring that there are other accusers. Am I omitting something like that? The fact that he lied about being of age to drink and downplayed the extent of his drinking saying he never didn’t know what was going on when many of his drinking friends have said they saw him drunk to the point of not knowing what was going on. Do you dispute that he mischaracterized his drinking? Do you dispute that he lied about drinking legally?
Here’s what he said:
My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone.
-
It’s been more than three weeks since rumblings of the allegations became public, and two and a half weeks since Dr. Ford came forward. Had the GOP pulled the nomination then, they could have still put forward someone to confirm before the midterms.
Allegations surfaced on Sept 12. Blasey Ford came forward Sept 16.
If the GOP does an investigation to see if this allegation has legs, they can still decide by the 20th that they want to pull the nomination. Trump nominates someone new on the 24th, and the GOP provides documentation that same day (or soon after).
Remember, many Republican senators didn’t want to proceed with Kavanaugh anyway because of his huge paper trail from his time working in Ken Starr’s office and in the W. Bush White House.
If they pull him and nominate someone with a less voluminous paper trail, he or she could have been nominated, vetted and a vote scheduled for three weeks from today.
Would the Democrats have liked this new pick? Probably not, because it still would have been a conservative. But it would not have been as politically troublesome as this has become. There was an easier path than this.
-
The Democrats would have thrown a fit over anyone that Trump nominated. That seems to be the new thing for them. The damn NY Times ran a article about Kavanaugh throwing ice at someone! Seriously step back and think about that for a minute. It is laughable that people think if Trump and the Republicans nominated someone else that the Democrats wouldn’t have found something else to bitch about.
-
Ricky Rubio, today, speaking about Ford’s allegations…
“it was also wrong to dismiss these allegations without looking into them as some did, almost like a reflex.”
Ricky Rubio on Friday, Sept 28th, when he was in favor of voting on Kavanaugh and not having an FBI investigation:
“This entire ordeal is indicative of something that goes beyond the nomination before us. It has revealed how our culture has become increasingly sick and demented, unmoored from the values upon which this great nation was founded and which have allowed our society to flourish.I will not vote against the nomination of someone who I am otherwise inclined to support and in the process add credence to charges which have already done permanent damage to his reputation, on the basis of allegations for which there is no independent corroboration and which are at odds with everything else we have heard about his character". He also said Senators against had “disgraced themselves” and that this was a “dark moment in the Senate’s history.”
Such BS. Just own it dude.
-
justanotherfan said:
Why Kavanaugh? That’s the real question for Republicans here. It’s not like Kavanaugh is the only conservative judge that could be nominated to the Supreme Court. There are at least two dozen justices out there with the type of background, as well as being very conservative in their rulings, that they could easily take Brett Kavanaugh’s place.
The GOP could have asked the President to pull the Kavanaugh nomination the instant the allegations surfaced and confirmed another conservative judge, even without any Democratic votes because the GOP has the majority. Instead, they insist that it has to be Kavanaugh despite the issues that have arisen, and despite the backlash it is causing, and despite his own handling of this.
When Clarence Thomas faced harassment allegations, you did not see him fly off the handle and go on an explosive, angry rant during his confirmation hearings.
Again, I ask simply - Why Kavanaugh? The GOP wants a conservative court. There are other judges that would be just as conservative, and some that would likely be even more conservative than Kavanaugh. If the goal is simply a conservative majority on the court, there are probably 20 other judges out there that could accomplish that goal.
So why Brett Kavanaugh?
Trump believes Kavanaugh would provide cover since Kavanaugh has indicated he doesn’t believe a sitting president can be held accountable should he be charged with certain acts that may be criminal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/11/does-brett-kavanaugh-think-the-president-is-immune-from-criminal-charges/?utm_term=.9d7a5b052919 Apparently other potential SCOTUS judicial candidates do not agree with Kavanaugh’s position, making Kavanaugh Trump’s “golden boy.”
-
Roy Blunt, on Merrick Garland treatment being compared to Kavanaugh’s treatment: "theres no comparison. Before Merrick Garland, the last time a Supreme Court nominee was confirmed when nominated in a president’s last year was 1985.
Guess why? Because Supreme Court justices don’t decide to die.
Potter Stewart (1915–1985)
Antonin Scalia (1936–2016)
The transparent BS parade continues.
… and “we talked to all the witnesses I know of, regarding credible charges”.
-
Writing appears to be on the wall and he’ll be confirmed regardless how any of us feel. I don’t know which base will be most fired up come November. But the timing of this will certainly make sure people get out and vote.
-
James Inhofe “innocent until proven guilty, thats what is on trial here”. No, it’s not a criminal trial, but good job toeing the party talking points.
-
Susan Collins decrying dark money while confirming Kavanaugh. Ohhhhhh the irony.
-
@BShark You referring to this? https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/05/jon-tester/how-much-dark-money-fueling-kavanaugh-confirmation/
-
Shame on you, Senator Collins. Game over.
-
approxinfinity said:
Shame on you, Senator Collins. Game over.
-
@BShark Hey man I feel really blessed lol - the President gonna be in town tomorrow ought to be fun lol
-
@jayballer73 blessed are the meek for they shall be the subject of our president’s rally ridicule.
-
approxinfinity said:
@jayballer73 blessed are the meek for they shall be the subject of our president’s rally ridicule.
lol, hell I’m just mad cause they are going to have my boulevard blocked - - -can’t get to Walmart- - -or Sonic lmao
-
Two things only:
-
Polygraph - why won’t they share the notes and video of the polygraph? Indications are that there were only 2 questions, something along the lines of “Do you believe your statement is true”. But let’s see the facts about it.
-
As to witnesses asking for an investigation and your extensive background with that.
How many of those cases took place in a highly charged political climate with balance of Supreme Court in the balance and a midterm election pending that had implications on said SCOTUS “advise and consent” power of the Senate?
I’m gonna to presume to take a wild guess at this having no knowledge beyond what you provided here on KU Buckets about your background and experience, and answer ZERO.
Therefore, your circumstantial evidence kinda falls into all the other supporting arguments like “most women who…”
Zero relevance to the facts at hand which all add up, when including circumstantial and “hard” ( since there weren’t any) facts to also ZERO.
The glove does not fit, you must acquit!
-
-
@approxinfinity I might, but I find it inconsequential to even consider it. As will all fair-minded Americans.
-
@approxinfinity hey, bring a blue dress with a stain on it and we’ll listen to you on this.
-
@DoubleDD yeah, I didn’t see many complain about Obama’s smoking pot. That at least was an illegal substance - despite recent trends in lawmaking to the contrary.
-
@approxinfinity well you are partly right, last second unsubstantiated character assassination and smearing is below standard Senatorial behavior.
-
@approxinfinity so Keith Ellison, vice-Chair of the DNC and Minnesota AG candidate should quit that race?
-
@approxinfinity the issue isn’t ignoring the meat of the issue. It’s having seen the accusations, we’re left asking, “Where’s the beef?” - Wendy
-
@DoubleDD it’s not even “He said, she said”. It’s “She said” and he wasn’t even there.
-
@Woodrow I heard a neighbor from his childhood would testify that he pulled a girls hair when he was 6. But only would come forward if there was an FBI investigation.
