New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
You've gotta love the chutzpah it takes to spin as a bad thing not presenting an anonymous letter as if it is convincing evidence.

"Oh, if only we'd known earlier maybe we would have done something! But now it's too late and we simply must confirm a possible rapist. It's the Democrats who forced us to do it!"
 
It doesn't make sense on any level. Even if he is there to protect President Stupid, that's only one vote. Roberts could easily decide that a sitting president can be indicted.

And why the rush? Odds are they still hold the Senate after the midterms.
 
Belz... said:
Virgins tend not to have had children, actually.
Click to expand...

We were discussing whether a child of a virgin bride would be bound to be the husband's child. It wouldn't. Few virgins conceive immediately so any offspring that isn't conceived immediately could be almost any man's kid.

"It is a wise child that knows its own father"
 
Busta Capp said:
Because Feinstein and ranking members knew about the letter and what it contained and through all their meetings with Kavanaugh they never mentioned having the info.
They never asked any questions about similar things through hours of group, one on one, and 1200 written questions, but when he passed all that her name was "leaked."

That is duplicitous at best.

And there should be outrage from the left that it wasn't investigated sooner.
Click to expand...

I have no problem seeing that both sides played politics with this issue.

IDK about outraged, but it's ****** behavior.

And I place a huge amount of blame for the general ****** behavior on the GOP, due to their normalization of ****** behavior by the president over the past 2 years.
 
GlennB said:
We were discussing whether a child of a virgin bride would be bound to be the husband's child. It wouldn't. Few virgins conceive immediately so any offspring that isn't conceived immediately could be almost any man's kid.

"It is a wise child that knows its own father"
Click to expand...

He said "likely", not "certain".
 
I saw a bit of the video at the end of the session, which was very confused.

I feel grateful that there was at last a moment where we could all come together, left, right, and center, and as Americans with one voice say, “Wait, what?”
 
What bothered me most about Kavanaugh yesterday in no particular order:

1. His lack of control over his emotions.
2. His anger, belligerence, aggressiveness.
3. His evasiveness on issues, most importantly re the FBI investigation.
4. His downplaying of his excessive drinking despite numerous statements otherwise by people who knew him at the time.
5. His refusal to admit that "Bart O'Kavanaugh" in Judge's book referred to him.
6. His claim that being the "ralphing winner" was connected to a "sensitive stomach" with food.
7. His claim that "boofing" refereed to "farts".
8. His claim that "Devil's Triangle' was a drinking game.
9. His claim that "Renate's Alumnius" was a sign of her "being one of the group".
10. His repeated, evasive tactic of resorting to listing all of his achievements and choir boy dedication to his studies and virginity instead of directly answering questions.
 
I read today that the Wikipedia page for "Devil's triangle" was recently updated by an editor with a congressional account. Coincidentally, it now matches the description that BK gave yesterday!
 
pgwenthold said:
Is not "hoisted" the past tense of hoist?
Click to expand...

Correct, it is.

While the pedantic nitpickers amount us insist that "Hoist with his own petard" is the original correct phrase, spoken by Hamlet, William Shakespeare, the reality is that languages evolves, and English is no exception.

More than one version is acceptable and in common use

Hoist by his own petard
Hosted with his own petard
Hoisted by his own petard
Hoist by one's own petard
Hoisted by one's own petard


"Hoisted" is the more common use in the USA

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hoist-by-your-own-petard.html
 
lomiller said:
From a Democratic standpoint the sooner it comes out the better. The notion that they held the information back to somehow screw over Republicans is pure CT but it plays into the victim mentality they have been pushing so the sheep, I mean Republican base, doesn’t bother to question whether it makes any sense.
Click to expand...
So, why didn't Feinstein do anything earlier? She could have maintained the identity of the victim and still mentioned the accusation in committee, to the FBI, or to Kavanaugh when she interviewed him earlier.
 
ahhell said:
So, why didn't Feinstein do anything earlier? She could have maintained the identity of the victim and still mentioned the accusation in committee, to the FBI, or to Kavanaugh when she interviewed him earlier.
Click to expand...

You've seen how things have gone with an actual victim testifying, how do you think an anonymous accusation would have played out?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom