New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
SuburbanTurkey said:
I honestly don't understand their play here. Are they really going to call a vote? Either they lose the vote, which seems likely and would be more disastrous than just pulling the nomination, or they just barely skate by and have this stink on them for a long time. The longer this goes on, the more the situation worsens for the R's. Dropping Kavanaugh and pushing through someone "clean" seems a no-brainer. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

The Republicans are in a bit of a bind. Their democratic support is dwindling, and even by gaming the system, there's only so much they can do to maintain power short of a coup. So they have to play it very carefully to keep their voters. But what would lose them? Give up Kavanaugh? Or lose the vote? It's not an easy decision to make.

'Course, if he's confirmed, the joke's on the rest of us.
 
varwoche said:
Crikey. yet again you post a characterization of what Avenatti said, rather than quote what Avenatti actually said. This is fundamental, and I'm at a loss why you persist.

Mind you, it may be the case that Avenatti actually said these things. But if you can't muster the effort to quote his actual words (what a concept!) my level of concern about the topic is such that I'm disinclined to follow your inept citations.
Click to expand...


"We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C., area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.”
-- Michael Avenatti (Sept 23, 2018)
 
Belz... said:
The Republicans are in a bit of a bind. Their democratic support is dwindling, and even by gaming the system, there's only so much they can do to maintain power short of a coup. So they have to play it very carefully to keep their voters. But what would lose them? Give up Kavanaugh? Or lose the vote? It's not an easy decision to make.
Click to expand...

Obama was smart to nominate women to the court. I think we've lost half the population here for SCOTUS noms. The new strategy will be to pick some unimpeachably upstanding person....and make darn sure it's a woman. It should have been a woman even if Kavanaugh is more qualified. That's the world we live in now. The stakes are too high to risk multiple unfounded allegations. Too easy to disrupt.

Sure, voters would be pissed (batcrap raving mad) at a withdrawal, but nowadays, it's forgotten in 24 hours. Nom a woman, send troops to Venezuela, declassify documents....lots of things available to take over brainspace before midterms.
 
Sherkeu said:
Do you believe my allegations are false? Maybe ISF should suspend or ban anyone who says 'cute' to a female poster til we get to the bottom of it! You don't want me continuing to feel abused, right? My word on that should be good enough..


As for the SCOTUS process, I think they need to put some rules on how 'new' information is handled or every single nomination will become a circus in its final days. Next time we'll have someone claiming child abuse or prostitution or <insert lurid claim here> an hour before the swearing in.
Click to expand...

I made this suggestion up thread a bit. This, and more of this. Bipartisan agreed upon regulations are needed. ASAP.
 
Sherkeu said:
Obama was smart to nominate women to the court. I think we've lost half the population here for SCOTUS noms. The new strategy will be to pick some unimpeachably upstanding person....and make darn sure it's a woman. It should have been a woman even if Kavanaugh is more qualified. That's the world we live in now. The stakes are too high to risk multiple unfounded allegations. Too easy to disrupt.
Click to expand...

...what?
 
Foolmewunz said:
I think the GOP and Grassley in particularly were envisioning another Clarence Thomas situation. More important, Kavanaugh's handlers are definitely expecting that. Thomas rode out the accusations and is still sitting there as the most conservative vote on the Court.

Now, I'm hard pressed to imagine Kavanaugh getting away with accusing the panel of "a lynching", but with everyone in the country currently being fingered as a sexual predator, they reckoned on being able to sell this to the entire GOP Senate rather easily.

I hate to say it but Grassley was right. They should have rammed it through for a vote last week. They're afraid of November, though, so decided to give it the pretense of being fair and opened the door to several more accusations. If they rushed the vote, they'd be jeopardizing not just the House (already seriously in play) but also the Senate.

The winning move for the GOP will not be played, I think. Withdraw his name and make hay of it in all your political ads through the election. Play him up as a martyr to the cause and blame the feminazis. Submit someone else from the El Creepo Federalist Society recruiting list. I think the GOP aren't willing to do that.... yet.
Click to expand...


I disagree. If the man is innocent, he should stand his ground. Only if he's guilty should he step down. We should not let baseless accusations ruin a mans opportunity, or reputation. Innocent until proven guilty should still mean something in this country. Do not let false accusations stop anything. Period. If they are false, this is a huge attempt at manipulating the process, which is another reason to continue it. Prove the accusations, or vote. IMHO. Replacement because of accusations alone, is giving in to to what could be political manipulation. You have to remember to date all witnesses have testified under oath that this did not happen. 5 witnesses that were named by the accuser. That's pretty extraordinary.
 
Belz... said:
...what?
Click to expand...

Women have much less risk of being seen as sexual aggressors (and it helps that it is statistically veery true). It's one less thing to defend against. One less bullet in the oppositions arsenal- either side mind you.
All noms will be women for the next 10 years after this.

(sorry if I wasnt so clear in my initial post.)
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I honestly don't understand their play here. Are they really going to call a vote? Either they lose the vote, which seems likely and would be more disastrous than just pulling the nomination, or they just barely skate by and have this stink on them for a long time. The longer this goes on, the more the situation worsens for the R's. Dropping Kavanaugh and pushing through someone "clean" seems a no-brainer. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
I can think of a couple of reasons they may not want to drop Kavanaugh:

- As another poster stated, it means admitting mistakes. For any politician that can look bad. They may be concerned about how their base feels. After swallowing all the excuses passed by the GOP, for them to go back and withdraw the nomination would kind of be a slap in the face for all the rank-and-file voters who were rape apologists. "We defended Kavanaugh against that lying evil woman who dared to get molested. Now you're withdrawing him. I'm not as eager to vote in the next election".

- They may think that by confirming early, they give a few extra weeks before the midterms in which they can minimize the damage. Either allowing the investigation to proceed, or withdrawing and appointing someone else means that the whole confirmation process will get drawn out, and leaves their efforts to confirm a rapey judge front and center during the election itself.
 
Sherkeu said:
Do you believe my allegations are false? Maybe ISF should suspend or ban anyone who says 'cute' to a female poster til we get to the bottom of it! You don't want me continuing to feel abused, right? My word on that should be good enough..


As for the SCOTUS process, I think they need to put some rules on how 'new' information is handled or every single nomination will become a circus in its final days. Next time we'll have someone claiming child abuse or prostitution or <insert lurid claim here> an hour before the swearing in.
Click to expand...
Sorry, are you admitting that your accusations regarding the word "cute" is just a game you're playing to make an addled point of some sort?

Supposing that "cute argument" is a sexist term (I don't think it is) how would that apply? Concerns about sexual assault by a Supreme Court nominee are equivalent to banning one from a forum because they used a term that might have been motivated by sexist considerations?

Is this the argument?
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C., area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.”
-- Michael Avenatti (Sept 23, 2018)
Click to expand...

No mention of "violence" in that tweet, I notice.
 
phiwum said:
......Supposing that "cute argument" is a sexist term (I don't think it is)..........
Click to expand...

It isn't. It's been used against me on this forum once or twice, and I've seen it used in response to other male posters as well.
 
Bob001 said:
Kavanaugh's Yale roommate says he was a mean drunk:

https://www.businessinsider.com/bre...e-ramirez-sexual-misconduct-allegation-2018-9
Click to expand...

In all these proceedings, has anyone asked him when was the last time he had a drink?

Given what is known about his problems with alcohol in the past, it's absolutely fair to question him on his current usage.

Especially his "I drank some" statements in his Fox interview. Friends describe him as, at least, a major binge drinker. To classify this as "I drank some" seems pretty disingenuous. It's a pretty common alcoholic excuse, in fact. "Yeah, I drink some, but it's not a problem."

What is written about him is not the usual "we all drank some when we were young" stories.
 
pgwenthold said:
In all these proceedings, has anyone asked him when was the last time he had a drink?

Given what is known about his problems with alcohol in the past, it's absolutely fair to question him on his current usage.
....
Click to expand...

Even more relevant, "Have you ever been treated for alcoholism or problem drinking?" Let's see his medical records. For that matter, if he has ever consulted a therapist, let's see those records, too.
 
Bob001 said:
Even more relevant, "Have you ever been treated for alcoholism or problem drinking?" Let's see his medical records. For that matter, if he has ever consulted a therapist, let's see those records, too.
Click to expand...

LETS IMMEDIATELY BIOPSY HIS LIVER!

this thing is getting more unhinged every single day....
 
There is also the little matter of Kavanaugh being $200,000 in credit card debt.
Not a mortgage, a ~15% interest credit card debt.

Needless to say, with such a debt he would never get a Security Clearance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom