New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[luchog]

No one is treating you like the bad guy, I have a different opinion than you do. I haven't insulted or demeaned you, or anything even close. I disagree that sitting on their hands until, maybe, they get a position of power isn't logical. We don't even know IF the Dems will get more power in the next election. So what if they sit on their hands, and then nothing changes, and we're back in the same position? What if they move ahead with impeachment and it encourages the voters in America that at least one political party is after justice? I don't care about Kavanaugh at this point. He's a piece of ****, but that was known already. This is just one of many times now it's said the Dems should shut up, put their head down, and wait until the next election. If people lose faith in a do-nothing party and don't vote, then why even bother showing up to vote just to put more spineless do-nothings in office?

The problem is, attempting impeachment when one does not have the power to actually accomplish anything useful is worse than not making the attempt; it plays right into the hands of the opposition, makes the party look ineffectual, and gives the other side ammunition to use against them. Without control of the Senate, an attempt at impeachment will result in precisely dick. It won't even get off the ground.

Look at what happened with the Muller Report. The investigation was stymied by too many people in all three levels of government throwing road blocks in the way, the report ultimately ends up with a finding of "inconclusive", and the Trump administration now gets to play that up to their base and the fence-sitters as "we were exonerated" because no one is actually going to read the report and understand what it means unless they're already strongly anti-Trump to begin with.

Smart Democrats will avoid that situation. The best they can do right now is take time to prepare and slowly build up grassroots support, while holding the threat of impeachment proceedings over the heads of the administration until such time as they have the power to actually make it happen effectively.

 

[Upchurch]

Lastly, as for authoritative perspective, what makes you think Pogrebin and Kelly are authoritative? Because they wrote a book? That makes them authors, but is that your standard for authoritative?

Again, who is Mollie Hemingway and why should anyone care about what she thinks or writes on twitter?

FWIW, I am glad you finally found some actual sources, but you should know better than this.

 

[plague311]

The problem is, attempting impeachment when one does not have the power to actually accomplish anything useful is worse than not making the attempt; it plays right into the hands of the opposition, makes the party look ineffectual, and gives the other side ammunition to use against them. Without control of the Senate, an attempt at impeachment will result in precisely dick. It won't even get off the ground.

Look at what happened with the Muller Report. The investigation was stymied by too many people in all three levels of government throwing road blocks in the way, the report ultimately ends up with a finding of "inconclusive", and the Trump administration now gets to play that up to their base and the fence-sitters as "we were exonerated" because no one is actually going to read the report and understand what it means unless they're already strongly anti-Trump to begin with.

Smart Democrats will avoid that situation. The best they can do right now is take time to prepare and slowly build up grassroots support, while holding the threat of impeachment proceedings over the heads of the administration until such time as they have the power to actually make it happen effectively.

I'll just throw my hands up in the air and walk away from it then. This seems like a bitch move, and it makes me lose a ton of respect for the Dems if this is the path they're going to take. I guess just turning a blind eye to illegalities has now become considered the best route to take. It's certainly going to have an affect on my ambition to vote, not that it matters anyway. I live in NoDak and nothing will change here.

At this point, I refuse to vote for a party that won't stand up for the people, and I can't vote for the other party that is committing these violations. So I guess I'll just...not vote federally and do my local votes and call it good. I refuse to support either one.

 

[applecorped]

lol

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, who is Mollie Hemingway and why should anyone care about what she thinks or writes on twitter?

It doesn't matter what she thinks. But her factual claim was correct. Do you care about the fact she pointed out? Because it seems like you're doing your best to avoid it.

I wonder why.
No, that's a lie. I know exactly why.

 

[luchog]

At this point, I refuse to vote for a party that won't stand up for the people, and I can't vote for the other party that is committing these violations. So I guess I'll just...not vote federally and do my local votes and call it good. I refuse to support either one.

I'm kind of confused how you expect them to "stand up for the people" when they currently lack the power to do so in more than an ineffectual token manner.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm kind of confused how you expect them to "stand up for the people" when they currently lack the power to do so in more than an ineffectual token manner.

The real question is how do we make republicans care about the rule of law.

 

[ahhell]

Again, who is Mollie Hemingway and why should anyone care about what she thinks or writes on twitter?

FWIW, I am glad you finally found some actual sources, but you should know better than this.

You could of course google her but, she's a conservative who wrote a book about the Kavanaugh hearings and quite clearly pointed out that the NYT's op ed did really leave out a bunch of information that at least casts doubt on the narrative that Kavanaugh is clearly a sexual predator.

As I understand it the list of sexual accusation against Kavanaugh are that between the ages of 16 and 22 he:

A credible accusation that he got drunk and assaulted another drunk teenager
A literally incredible accusation that he was part of a gang rape ring
A credible accusation that he exposed himself at a frat party but one with out corroboration
A credible accusation that he exposed himself at a frat party in which the supposed victim denies it happened or at least doesn't remember it happening.
Then nothing for the last 33 years?

All which is why nobody talks about the potential perjury by an executive branch official, which is the only charge of any bearing on his fitness for the Supreme Court.

 

[Upchurch]

It doesn't matter what she thinks. But her factual claim was correct. Do you care about the fact she pointed out? Because it seems like you're doing your best to avoid it.

You can't even answer a simple question without projecting your assumptions on to other people.

I wonder why.
No, that's a lie. I know exactly why.

Who hurt you? Was it Obama?

 

[plague311]

I'm kind of confused how you expect them to "stand up for the people" when they currently lack the power to do so in more than an ineffectual token manner.

They certainly don't lack the power in the House. The support of impeachment has been steadily growing, and has been pointed out before, support for Nixon's impeachment started out low as well.

I go back to my previous question, so what now? Wait until they come back into power, right? What if they don't? What if blue collar democrats, of which I am, find them to be weak, spineless cowards and just don't vote?

Why should I vote for them at all? I'm not implying I'll vote GOP, but why would I vote for a party that finds it strategically helpful to not do anything against someone that has\does repeatedly break policy and the law?

 

[ponderingturtle]

They certainly don't lack the power in the House. The support of impeachment has been steadily growing, and has been pointed out before, support for Nixon's impeachment started out low as well.

But he lost half of republicans with his saturday night massacre, it was only then that impeachment became a possibility. So we can see it as possible when Trump loses half of republicans and has poll ratings of 25% and not 40%.

I go back to my previous question, so what now? Wait until they come back into power, right? What if they don't? What if blue collar democrats, of which I am, find them to be weak, spineless cowards and just don't vote?

Why should I vote for them at all? I'm not implying I'll vote GOP, but why would I vote for a party that finds it strategically helpful to not do anything against someone that has\does repeatedly break policy and the law?

Because you want them to expend political capital on the things you want accomplished? Look the rule of law is dead and has little to no chance or applying to leading republicans ever, that is simply a given in our current system.

 

[Ziggurat]

You could of course google her

He could have. But I don't think he actually cares who she is. Nominally his interest is in how reliable she is, but her claim is already proven, so that's not even relevant anymore. Even the NYT themselves admit they screwed up. But the screwup itself is the one thing Upchurch won't even touch. It doesn't actually make any sense.

 

[Upchurch]

I did google her. She did not appear to be anyone whose opinion was worth taking at face value. Yes, she turned out to be correct this time, but that was only shown when more evidence was presented.


You know what they say about people who assume.

 

[Segnosaur]

Why should I vote for them at all? I'm not implying I'll vote GOP, but why would I vote for a party that finds it strategically helpful to not do anything against someone that has\does repeatedly break policy and the law?

As they say, "Good is the enemy of the Perfect".

I think pretty much all of us agree a Democratic president and congress will be better than what we currently have now.... less likely to place judges like Drunky McRapeface on the supreme court, less likely to ignore global warming, less likely to enact racist policies.

The fact that they may not be willing to spend the time to impeach Kavenaugh may make them imperfect in your eyes but they are still better in pretty much every way than the Republicans.

 

[luchog]

They certainly don't lack the power in the House. The support of impeachment has been steadily growing, and has been pointed out before, support for Nixon's impeachment started out low as well.

Show me the Republicans who are willing to support impeachment against Trump and Kavanaugh. Remember who controls the Senate, and therefore who will be the actual court reviewing evidence and making the decisions regarding its outcome. Remember that this is the same Senate that is constantly sucking up to Trump; and who already confirmed Kavanaugh despite credible rape accusations. Do you really think a Senate who confirmed their golden-boy Justice is going to turn around and kick him back out because of more of the same? Rape wasn't a deal-breaker to them during confirmation, why would it be a deal-breaker during impeachment?

I go back to my previous question, so what now? Wait until they come back into power, right?

Well that's bloody obvious, innit?

What if they don't?

Then we have far larger problems than a few rape accusations and perjury complaints. Like, you know, the imminent end of most human life on this planet combined with mass extinctions at a rate unseen since the K-T Event; and the fact that millions of people will be without healthcare of any sort, and the poor and chronically ill will start dying off en masse. I mean, if the Democrats don't regain power, that means that the country has shifted very far to the right, and the impeachment of a few lawbreakers in office is going to be the least our our concerns.

What if blue collar democrats, of which I am, find them to be weak, spineless cowards and just don't vote?

Then they're idiots, and one of the reasons Trump is in power right now. If they haven't learned from the last election, and are too stupid to recognize the impossibility of impeachment even proceeding in the current political environment, then they're a lost cause anyway. Especially if they're basing their voting decision exclusively on impeachment and not on the myriad of far more important and immediate issues like Climate Change, Health Care, and Social Security.

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good. If you keep demanding perfection in your politicians, you're going to keep failing.

Why should I vote for them at all? I'm not implying I'll vote GOP, but why would I vote for a party that finds it strategically helpful to not do anything against someone that has\does repeatedly break policy and the law?

For starters, a sense of self-preservation and an understanding that there are far more pressing and potentially catastrophic issues that need attention right now.

 

[plague311]

The fact that they may not be willing to spend the time to impeach Kavenaugh may make them imperfect in your eyes but they are still better in pretty much every way than the Republicans.

I'm going to snip up a few things to try and cut straight to my point for you and Luchog. I am not referring to Kavanaugh specifically and have requested my posts be moved since they are more aimed towards Trump than Kavanaugh. I understand the "perfect is the enemy of good", but I'm not asking for perfection. I'm asking for a political party to do the basic aspects of their job. Oversight in order to hold the POTUS responsible for his actions.

Show me the Republicans who are willing to support impeachment against Trump and Kavanaugh. Remember who controls the Senate, and therefore who will be the actual court reviewing evidence and making the decisions regarding its outcome.

Isn't this basically along the same lines of "perfect is the enemy of good"? Do you not think it would be good to get all of the evidence to the American public before another election? Wouldn't that outweigh any negative aspect, like not actually impeaching Trump?

*snipped for brevity*

Please see my previous note about referring more to Trump than Kavanaugh, I apologize for my confusion.

Well that's bloody obvious, innit?

I thought so anyway.

*snip, seemed a bit hyperbolic and I'd rather not address it*

Then they're idiots, and one of the reasons Trump is in power right now.

I do take exception to this.

If they haven't learned from the last election, and are too stupid to recognize the impossibility of impeachment even proceeding in the current political environment, then they're a lost cause anyway. Especially if they're basing their voting decision exclusively on impeachment and not on the myriad of far more important and immediate issues like Climate Change, Health Care, and Social Security.

To me, it's not specifically about impeachment. That's just the tool used to complete the job. It's about holding someone responsible for their actions when they flagrantly break the law\policy ad nauseum without being held responsible. It's about paying lip service to their responsibilities in an attempt to "win".

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good. If you keep demanding perfection in your politicians, you're going to keep failing.

Addressed, and I've done no such thing.

For starters, a sense of self-preservation and an understanding that there are far more pressing and potentially catastrophic issues that need attention right now.

And those things are being ignored because of the individual we have in the White House. Using the impeachment proceedings as a means to get every single piece of evidence out to the American people isn't a negative to me. It's a net gain for the population.

As I see it, we both have the same goals. We just don't agree on the way to get there.

ETA: More to the point, the Dems in the house have passed laws related to Climate Change, gun control, prison reform, et cetera. Which I support.

 

[Lurch]

They certainly don't lack the power in the House. The support of impeachment has been steadily growing, and has been pointed out before, support for Nixon's impeachment started out low as well.

I go back to my previous question, so what now? Wait until they come back into power, right? What if they don't? What if blue collar democrats, of which I am, find them to be weak, spineless cowards and just don't vote?

Why should I vote for them at all? I'm not implying I'll vote GOP, but why would I vote for a party that finds it strategically helpful to not do anything against someone that has\does repeatedly break policy and the law?

I feel and share your frustration. I hate to see anyone getting away with misfeasance. But this election could well be the most crucial in decades at least. Do your bit to give every chance to the better Party to flush the scum out of Washington. That mid-term goal trumps any immediate term effort in what could well be a Sysiphean task.

I know. Just like with Nixon, an initial lack of zeal for impeachment among the populace *could* grow as more facts come to light. And more info will spill. Just because it might not crest into an irresistible pressure, let not despair take over. Unless you're really willing to just lay down and die, keep fighting for the good.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did google her. She did not appear to be anyone whose opinion was worth taking at face value.

Once again, it wasn't an opinion. Do you even know what that word means? Because you keep using it wrong.

And strangely enough, the NYT authors who you didn't even know the identity of were worth paying attention to at face value as well. Same with Max Stier (remember who he is in this story?).

Maybe your judgment of who is worth paying attention to and who isn't needs some tune up.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you not think it would be good to get all of the evidence to the American public before another election?

Why would you need impeachment in order to do that? What evidence do you imagine exists that hasn't already been made public? Are you arguing that such hypothetical evidence can only be made public through impeachment proceedings?

 

[plague311]

I feel and share your frustration. I hate to see anyone getting away with misfeasance. But this election could well be the most crucial in decades at least. Do your bit to give every chance to the better Party to flush the scum out of Washington. That mid-term goal trumps any immediate term effort in what could well be a Sysiphean task.

I know. Just like with Nixon, an initial lack of zeal for impeachment among the populace *could* grow as more facts come to light. And more info will spill. Just because it might not crest into an irresistible pressure, let not despair take over. Unless you're really willing to just lay down and die, keep fighting for the good.

Like I said, in all honesty my presidential vote means absolutely nothing. I live in North Dakota and there is absolutely no possible way it's going blue any time soon. Even if everyone in the 3 biggest voted Dem I still don't think the state would flip. It's as solidly red as a state can be.

Why would you need impeachment in order to do that? What evidence do you imagine exists that hasn't already been made public? Are you arguing that such hypothetical evidence can only be made public through impeachment proceedings?

I don't know the answers to these, but I do believe that impeachment proceedings would garner more attention by the American public than the Mueller report. Firstly, because the Mueller report was a slow, slow drip operation that took a long time. I don't believe an impeachment trial would go the same way. I believe it would be a bit faster paced. Secondly, I think it would hold the American public attention span in a way that would enable people to take in that information more easily. Am I right? I don't know the answer to that either. I know that, as Americans, I've never heard of circumstances like this before in politics. I could be wrong.