New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
ahhell said:
Which is way I don't mind so much that the Dems are using unsubstantiated accusations to derail Kavanaugh. I'm more than a little surprised at a bunch of skeptics taking it so seriously though. Its a solid if somewhat underhanded political maneuver, not significantly more underhanded than the GOP blocking Garland though. The accusations on the other hand, aren't really that compelling yet.
Click to expand...

No one's saying that they are compelling; only that they deserve some investigation. After all, we're looking to confirm someone to the SCOTUS.
 
theprestige said:
Finding common ground is awesome. Trying to browbeat people into it is not. This is an excellent time for you to drop the shovel and climb out of the hole before you dig it any deeper.
Click to expand...

Your refusal to answer a question I asked that you yourself found to be a good one because I keep asking is me digging a hole?

Well, no, no it isn't.
 
theprestige said:
Unless her husband gave that interview to the Post in 2012, his recollection has the same problem as hers.

In fact, he remembers "Kavanaugh" in 2018, after it becomes a household name. It's not even tissue-clad evidence.
Click to expand...

- "Hey Belz...?"
- "Yeah?"
- "You remember seeing the movie Return of the Jedi in 1983?"
- "Sure!"
- "AHAH!! You remember it now in 2018. It means NOTHING!!"
 
theprestige said:
Agreed.

And not having access to clean tricks is not a license to resort to dirty tricks.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

And if the Democrats had control of Congress back during the Garland debacle, you can bet some money that the GOP would've done everything in their power, dirty tricks and all, to prevent him from being confirmed.
 
Belz... said:
No one's saying that they are compelling; only that they deserve some investigation. After all, we're looking to confirm someone to the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

This seems to be an argument in favor of allowing any faction to derail any confirmation, by producing a steady trickle of "accusations" that aren't "compelling" but still "deserve some investigation" for some reason.
 
tyr_13 said:
Your refusal to answer a question I asked that you yourself found to be a good one because I keep asking is me digging a hole?

Well, no, no it isn't.
Click to expand...

You continuing to browbeat me is the hole you're digging, tyr. If your goal is to encourage me to reconsider, then you're going about it all wrong.
 
theprestige said:
Agreed.

And not having access to clean tricks is not a license to resort to dirty tricks.
Click to expand...

Is there someplace where the difference between “clean tricks” and “dirty tricks” is codified?

It’d be nice to have something else to rely on other than your post hoc rationalizations and special pleading.
 
Belz... said:
Indeed.

And if the Democrats had control of Congress back during the Garland debacle, you can bet some money that the GOP would've done everything in their power, dirty tricks and all, to prevent him from being confirmed.
Click to expand...

And dirty tricks they would have been. And - knowing me - I might even have hypocritically tried to excuse such tricks. Luckily for me, we're not in that situation. And luckily for you, you're not trying to hypocritically excuse such tricks.

That seems to be all that needs to be said about that.
 
theprestige said:
And dirty tricks they would have been. And - knowing me - I might even have hypocritically tried to excuse such tricks. Luckily for me, we're not in that situation. And luckily for you, you're not trying to hypocritically excuse such tricks.

That seems to be all that needs to be said about that.
Click to expand...

I know they are dirty tricks; I just don't care. The nominee's past behavior with women justifies any legal means to prevent his confirmation. You can't go too low to sink this sick ****.
 
Belz... said:
Indeed.

And if the Democrats had control of Congress back during the Garland debacle, you can bet some money that the GOP would've done everything in their power, dirty tricks and all, to prevent him from being confirmed.
Click to expand...

That has already happened.

The problem here is tht the GOP has effectively invalidated any view of the Supreme Court is a nonpartisan body. Instead, we have a Supreme court that is openly anti-worker, white supremacist, and honestly soon to be anti-woman.

That will require a response, obviously.
 
theprestige said:
You continuing to browbeat me is the hole you're digging, tyr. If your goal is to encourage me to reconsider, then you're going about it all wrong.
Click to expand...

My goal is to get information.

The information you choose to communicate is largely up to you. Thus far, it's that you won't answer a 'great question' because I reject your assessment of my asking.

Don't answer if you don't want to, but I'm not going to pretend your refusal is my fault.
 
theprestige said:
Seems like the GOP was able to block Garland's confirmation without smearing him. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Garland didn't even get as far as a confirmation hearing so there was no need to smear him. Almost immediately after Scalia's death, and before Garland had even been mentioned, Mitch McConnell announced NO Obama candidate would be given a hearing as the next president would be the one to nominate Scalia's replacement. McConnell could do this as he controlled Congress. All GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they would not vote for any Obama nominee.

It would have been rather difficult to smear Garland even if they had gotten that far. Garland, unlike Kavanaugh, was a moderate that was respected by both sides of the aisle including Orrin Hatch who had earlier praised him.

For Republicans to level charges that the Dems have politicized this is the height of hypocrisy. But that's nothing new.
 
sylvan8798 said:
The more Kavanaugh tries to claim that he was a virginal choir boy with a few cringe-worthy moments in his oh-so-stellar youth, the less believable his story becomes. Choir boys don't have yearbook pages with that kind of stuff on them and friends who talk about how much they drank and partied.
Click to expand...
I’m not so certain. I had a suite mate in college who was quite the partier and lady’s man. Nothing crazy, but not a choir boy either.

He went on to seminary, married his high school girlfriend, remains married over 35 years later, has four outstanding young adult children and is a respected pastor.*

People grow, evolve, mature. It’s not guaranteed but it does happen.

*It’s worth mentioning he does not deny his past, but then again redemption stories do carry weight in his line of work.
 
theprestige said:
Unless her husband gave that interview to the Post in 2012, his recollection has the same problem as hers.

In fact, he remembers "Kavanaugh" in 2018, after it becomes a household name. It's not even tissue-clad evidence.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting he didn't remember that name in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom