New SCOTUS Judge

[Skeptic Ginger]

Another good question might be: Why did Feinstein wait so long to bring this letter out? Apparently it was hand delivered to her office July 30th? That doesnt sound right does it?

Here you go again. This has been asked and answered yet you ask the question like it's a new revelation.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here you go again. This has been asked and answered yet you ask the question like it's a new revelation.

That is true, it is because feinstein did not think it was credible.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That is true, it is because feinstein did not think it was credible.

She probably thought it lacked evidence - but it is credible, given is his history and drinking buddies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
It all depends on how concerned you are that you may have racist attitudes you hadn't previously thought about.....

Clearly I'm not concerned.

What gets me here is how many people reacted to the 'white' in old white guys running the country.

You going to look at a picture of the Senate and pretend that's a racial mix?

This is from the last Congress not the current one but it's not very relevant given the government has been the same since it's inception:
If you consider Jews to be white, that makes 96 senators [that are white].

To date, there have been six black United States Senators. Hiram Revels was the first black senator, he represented Mississippi in 1870 and 1871 during Reconstruction. Blanche K. Bruce (also of Mississippi) was elected to the senate in 1875, he served until 1881 and was the first African-American to serve a full term in the United States Senate. Edward Brooke represented Massachusetts from 1967 to 1979. Carol Mosely-Braun became the first black woman to join the senate, serving for Illinois from 1993 to 1999. Barack Obama also represented the state of Illinois, he was elected in 2004 and served until 2008, when he resigned after being elected President. Most recently, Roland Burris, from Illinois, was appointed to complete Barack Obama's term in January 2009.

So we shouldn't mention there is an issue with white men in government because that's racist?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Worth repeating. People from the right, left and center called her on it and she decided to blame everyone else rather than reevaluate her actions.

Or she is standing her ground because she is right.

 

[The Big Dog]

Clearly I'm not concerned.

What gets me here is how many people reacted to the 'white' in old white guys running the country.

You going to look at a picture of the Senate and pretend that's a racial mix?

This is from the last Congress not the current one but it's not very relevant given the government has been the same since it's inception:
If you consider Jews to be white, that makes 96 senators [that are white].


So we shouldn't mention there is an issue with white men in government because that's racist?

I think that most people had a problem with you calling a black man derogatory and racist terms, but sure, go ahead and pretend it was something else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, see, the Republicans have done such a thorough job of trashing the FBI, they can't be guaranteed they will hand-deliver the results they want.

Good point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Feinstein may have also realized out the accusation is essentially unverifiable. She may have released later as a last option or someone on her staff may have released for the same reason.

So like what, she sent a secret message to Ford, come out now, we need you after all?

Unless you know who leaked it to the press, you cannot say Feinstein plotted anything.

 

[Belz...]

Or she is standing her ground because she is right.

Well, let's see. What's more likely? That EVERYBODY just misunderstands the poor lady, or that the lady in question, who has a bit of a history of this, is just wrong but won't admit it? Hmmm...

How about you make a better case for yourself? Otherwise, just accept the consequences of your words.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, let's see. What's more likely? That EVERYBODY just misunderstands the poor lady, or that the lady in question, who has a bit of a history of this, is just wrong but won't admit it? Hmmm...

How about you make a better case for yourself? Otherwise, just accept the consequences of your words.

Truthiness by majority?

 

[River]

Truthiness by majority?

Nah, lets ruin a persons career and take away their opportunities based on allegations alone. No need for proof or authentication. Right? Perhaps we will see this with all new SC appointments now that this fiasco has become the norm. Solid proof. Otherwise, vote. If an FBI investigation is needed, so be it. It should not delay these hearings. If he's found guilty of anything he can be removed. This has been a huge pony show.

 

[Belz...]

Truthiness by majority?

No, but I'm not surprised that you went for the fallacy rather than examine your position and respond to my request for a more robust defense of your words.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Clearly I'm not concerned.

What gets me here is how many people reacted to the 'white' in old white guys running the country.

Clearly.

You going to look at a picture of the Senate and pretend that's a racial mix?

This is from the last Congress not the current one but it's not very relevant given the government has been the same since it's inception:
If you consider Jews to be white, that makes 96 senators [that are white].


So we shouldn't mention there is an issue with white men in government because that's racist?

...and you're still not acknowledging what it is that people have actually said to you. I hope for your sake that at some point in the future you will choose to listen.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Nah, lets ruin a persons career and take away their opportunities based on allegations alone. No need for proof or authentication. Right? Perhaps we will see this will all new SC appointments now that this fiasco has become the norm. Solid proof. Otherwise, vote. If an FBI investigation is needed, so be it. It should not delay these hearings. If he's found guilty of anything he can be removed. This has been a huge pony show.

Opportunities?
Are you kidding me?

The guy had a flawless career. But he just isn't good enough for the HONOR of serving on the supreme Court.
It's not like he is being denied a well deserved promotion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If an FBI investigation is needed, so be it.

It is.

It should not delay these hearings.

Why not?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044056219084828672

Brett Kavanaugh must also be asked about this entry in his yearbook: "FFFFFFFourth of July." We believe that this stands for: Find them, French them, Feel them, Finger them, F*ck them, Forget them. As well as the term "Devil's Triangle." Perhaps Sen. Grassley can ask him. #Basta

 

[The Big Dog]

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044056219084828672

Creepy porn lawyer would know that, wouldn't he?

 

[Belz...]

Wait, why does he "believe" this?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You know, I did wonder whether you'd take up Fox's nickname. It's still childish, but it's better than yours, so it's probably a wise move.

 

[Random]

Nah, lets ruin a persons career and take away their opportunities based on allegations alone. No need for proof or authentication. Right? Perhaps we will see this with all new SC appointments now that this fiasco has become the norm. Solid proof. Otherwise, vote. If an FBI investigation is needed, so be it. It should not delay these hearings. If he's found guilty of anything he can be removed. This has been a huge pony show.

Mitch McConnell brutally murdered the argument that we should not delay a Supreme Court appointment vote back in 2016 with his handling of Judge Garland. Remember, the nominee no one had accused of sexual assault? Keeping a respected jurist on the shelf for almost a year out of sheer pique, while demanding a swift vote on Brett “You probably can’t prove I’m I rapist so why bother to try” Kavanaugh, is such a blatant display of partisanship that it defies reason.