New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Beelzebuddy said:
They're certainly behaving as if this us their only chance. My guess is Trump would refuse to nominate anyone who won't promise to protect him beforehand, maybe even on the record for his insurance, and aside from Kavanaugh that's proven to be beyond the pale for everyone else. So it's him or nobody.
Click to expand...

Trump thinks he needs Kavanaugh to protect him.

The Republicans think they have to win because its a symbolic victory against the other side and all symbolic victories against the other side have to be won.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The Republicans think they have to win because its a symbolic victory against the other side and all symbolic victories against the other side have to be won.
Click to expand...


well, it is quite embarrassing that even when in control of Congress and the White House you can't get a nominee confirmed.
 
The Big Dog said:
These tweets are protected.

You know that loser refused to turn over names to the Judiciary Committee and FBI, right?

The lead attorney for Grassley Mike Davis wrote to thirsty saying:

“We have already reviewed your client’s allegations. We focus on credible allegations. Please stop emailing me.”

Mike Davis is going to get investigated for slaying Avenatti. :)
Click to expand...

These women are liars and this is all a conspiracy... that we will of course make no effort to investigate and prosecute.
 
River said:
How do you feel about affirmative action?
Click to expand...

I hate it and it worked. It shouldn't be and yet it still needs to be. It is a band-aid at best to ending discrimination. Real solutions require a lot of white people and brown people pulling their heads out of their asses.
 
johnny karate said:
These women are liars and this is all a conspiracy... that we will of course make no effort to investigate and prosecute.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, you believe that don't you? Well, first of all Avenatti is a grifter (and a man!) and he has refused to provide the information he claims he has, while at the same sending out tweets claiming he is trying to cooperate.

Second, y'all see the NBC interview with his gal? Yeah, take a deep dive into that exercise in totally contradicting the statement.

Third, Bottom line: Next time someone in the press repeats D claims that nobody is evaluating the Swetnick claims, just laugh. Given how absurd the claims are, that Judiciary is dealing with them at all is a a testament to its good faith effort to investigate.
 
Meadmaker said:
So, there was this line of questioning that was intended to demonstrate that problem.

I'll let y'all connect the dots on what such a line of questioning would be called, if, say, there was some catchy phrase to describe it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm glad that this problem was exposed during the nomination process.

The part we evidently continue to disagree on is this:

You claim the questions were *irrelevant* to the investigation, and only intended to trap him into perjury.

I might agree with you if, for example, he had been asked if he ever had sex with an animal. Or a dead body.

However, as I have explained a few times already, the subject of blackouts is absolutely relevant.

Here's a question on a scenario that I mentioned but never really asked you:

A person is suspected of murder and is questioned by the police. The suspect was black out drunk on the night in question.

Do you think the fact that he was black out drunk is of no interest to the police and their investigation???
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
But realistically, would a majority-conservative court overturn abortion laws?
Click to expand...
Its certainly a possibility. An outside possibility, but it still exists.

But as others have said... the big risk right now is not a complete overturning of Roe v. Wade, but in multiple smaller battles. So, abortion is technically kept legal, but funding is cut. Or restrictions are put in place (e.g. women must attend mandatory counseling sessions before hand, even if the woman has to travel a long distance.)

For example, in Texas they passed a law that included things like requiring doctors who performed abortions at clinics also have admitting privileges at hospitals, and that clinics meet certain criteria (even though the criteria that they had to meet weren't applicable to the type of work done at abortion clinics.) This law would have reduced the number of available clinics (which would have forced poorer women to travel further to get abortions, a hardship for many).

The supreme court ruled the majority of the law unconstitutional by a vote of 5-3 (with Kennedy voting with the majority). If Trump gets Kavanaugh (or someone similar) on the bench and Gorsuch takes an expected anti-abortion stance, then if the same law were up for a vote today it would probably be ruled consititutional by a vote of 5-4 (i.e. 2 more anti-abortion votes, one less swing-vote).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Senate_Bill_5
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/index.html

Could that possibly work in the modern world? That's a whole lot of women and men who won't stand by this. Same with gay marriage, which has majority support.
Click to expand...
Remember, in order to get elected a politician does not have to appeal to EVERYONE, to get elected, only to:
- Their hardcore base who actually supports/wants the policies
- People who may be against the policies but don't feel strongly enough that its an issue that will affect their vote. If you're a middle-class white male, you may think "Yea, women should have access to abortion. But I really want that tax cut that the republicans are offering".
 
acbytesla said:
Right to Work and other anti labor laws such as Taft Hartley, fighting minimum wage increases, promoting exemptions against minimum wages such as the common practices of calling employees managers so they can pay them beneath the minimum wage or making them contractors.

Trying to destroy safety nets, anti-consumer protection laws. Banking Modernization and Insurance Modernization Acts. Abandoning Glass Steagall

Want more? I got more. But you answer my question. Name some legislation where Republicans stood up for American workers against their employers?
Click to expand...

Please explain how any of those apply to someone based on their skin color.

Also: How do you feel about affirmative action?
 
Last edited:
Neither Trump, nor the majority of Republicans are going to drop Kavanaugh. They need him as the final nail in the coffin to make them immune from legal consequences for their corruption.

The only way his nomination fails is a no vote from Flake et al
 
River said:
Please explain how any of those apply to someone based on their skin color.

Also: How do you feel about affirmative action?
Click to expand...

I'll answer your question. Who are the rich and powerful employers? See a lot of color in those board rooms do you? How about stockholders? I rest my case. Also, I never said it was only skin color.

I addressed your affirmative actionn question already.

Now answer my question. Name some Republican sponsored legislation where they took the side of workers over their employers?
 
Last edited:
What is the Democratic and Republican opinion on the proper fuel pump size for an '88 Honda Hatchback?
 
So, compare and contrast:

http://fortune.com/2018/09/28/trump-ford-credible-witness/

“I thought her testimony was very compelling and she looks like a very fine woman to me, very fine woman,” Trump said of Ford while speaking to reporters on Friday. “It was an incredible moment I think in the history of our country,” he continued. “But certainly [Ford] was a very credible witness. She was very good in many respects.”
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45727618

"Thirty-six years ago this happened: I had one beer! Well, you think it was…? Nope! It was one beer.

"Oh, good. How'd you get home? I don't remember. How'd you get there? I don't remember. Where was the place? I don't remember.

"How many years ago was it? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know! I don't know! What neighbourhood was it in? I don't know.

"Where's the house? I don't know! Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don't know! But I had one beer. That's the only thing I remember. And a man's life is in tatters."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom