New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
lomiller said:
I doubt the partner matters much. What would matter in evolutionary terms is ensuring you only spend resources to support your own offspring. A virgin can’t be pregnant so resources you direct towards them can’t be “wasted” on someone else’s offspring.
Click to expand...
Oh, dear. This does not comport with their own doctrine, though, does it?
 
Segnosaur said:
I'd say hold off on the whole 'good for him' until we see what the result is.

If the white house and/or Grassley says "no FBI investigation", we may see Flake turn around and vote to confirm anyways, with a big "Well I tried" We should only say "good for him" if he either manages to force an investigation, or he votes against confirmation if the white house says no.

The fact that he voted him out of committee is not a good sign.
Click to expand...
If he puts in a couple years talking reasonable on TV shows while consistently voting with his party anyway, he'll end up being seen as a heroic maverick like John McCain.
 
Busta Capp said:
The letter was hand delivered to Feinstein in July.
The person asked to remain anonymous.

Her identity was revealed or "leaked" after all interviews with Kavanaugh and the vote to confirm was set to go forward.

You don't find that timing odd ?
Click to expand...

And why is that important? It changes nothing about questions raised by the accusations.
 
Busta Capp said:
The letter was hand delivered to Feinstein in July.
The person asked to remain anonymous.

Her identity was revealed or "leaked" after all interviews with Kavanaugh and the vote to confirm was set to go forward.

You don't find that timing odd ?
Click to expand...
Nope. Such an anonymous person might have had hope that things were happening behind the scenes to derail the nomination. Once everything started going like a freight train, such a person might decide it's worth the inevitable character assassination to come fully forward.
 
pgwenthold said:
Is not "hoisted" the past tense of hoist?
Click to expand...

It is now, but in Hamlet, being the origin of the phrase, hoist is used as the past tense version of the word. It's not necessary to convert it to past tense by using modernised english. Of course I get that archaic phrases change, and are accepted, naturally by misuse, and i'm trying to grow out of my irritation with that.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
And why is that important? It changes nothing about questions raised by the accusations.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. We are being told now that these questions are so important that the confirmation must be delayed until they are answered.

I would say that questions that weren't important enough to ask back in July aren't important enough to delay the confirmation process now.
 
theprestige said:
Sure it does. We are being told now that these questions are so important that the confirmation must be delayed until they are answered.

I would say that questions that weren't important enough to ask back in July aren't important enough to delay the confirmation process now.
Click to expand...

You're not making any sense. The fact that these accusations were held back changes nothing about their nature or the question they raise.
 
Belz... said:
And why is that important? It changes nothing about questions raised by the accusations.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 invetigated sooner.
Click to expand...

And? You can say it paints the Democrats a certain way, but it changes nothing about questions raised by the accusations.
 
theprestige said:
I'm of the opinion that Congress probably doesn't owe the President an explanation for anything ever. If anything, the constitutional obligation to explain stuff flows the other direction.

The President has to report to Congress on the state of the Union. Presidential appointees have to justify their nomination to Congress. Etc.
Click to expand...

Spot on. It does make you wonder why he said that then.
 
The Big Dog said:
I do get a chuckle that Michael "Very Thirsty" Avenatti is on twitter just screaming into the void about his crackpot theory.
Click to expand...


"Warning - If the committee advances the nomination this afternoon, my client and I are going to thoroughly enjoy embarrassing @ChuckGrassley @LindseyGrahamSC @tedcruz and all of the other GOP members on the committee this weekend when her story is told and is deemed credible.

"And if you think I am bluffing, you have not been paying attention the last 7 months. I don’t traffic in nonsense. I traffic in facts and evidence."

-- Creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti (Sept 28, 2018)
 
Captain_Swoop said:
To ensure any offspring are yours is more likely.
Click to expand...

Yes, but only if you're pretty ignorant about human reproduction. And those that established the idea were very ignorant indeed. I suppose if the wife can't even leave the house and has her ma-in-law in permanent attendance that could work to establish paternity ;)
 
Last edited:
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...

you are wrong.

Ford, like Feinstein, could tell that there was next to no chance to stop Kavanaugh, and trying to stop it with this reveal would certainly cause great trouble for Ford and probably not change anything. So there was no plan to move forward.
Only when journalists found out about it did Ford decided to get it over with instead of staying silent.
 
Busta Capp said:
The letter was hand delivered to Feinstein in July.
The person asked to remain anonymous.

Her identity was revealed or "leaked" after all interviews with Kavanaugh and the vote to confirm was set to go forward.

You don't find that timing odd ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"Warning - If the committee advances the nomination this afternoon, my client and I are going to thoroughly enjoy embarrassing @ChuckGrassley @LindseyGrahamSC @tedcruz and all of the other GOP members on the committee this weekend when her story is told and is deemed credible.

"And if you think I am bluffing, you have not been paying attention the last 7 months. I don’t traffic in nonsense. I traffic in facts and evidence."

-- Creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti (Sept 28, 2018)
Click to expand...

How 'bout the creepy president who boned the creepy porn lawyer's client?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
you are wrong.

Ford, like Feinstein, could tell that there was next to no chance to stop Kavanaugh, and trying to stop it with this reveal would certainly cause great trouble for Ford and probably not change anything. So there was no plan to move forward.
Only when journalists found out about it did Ford decided to get it over with instead of staying silent.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

When asked, Ford stated that she didn't know who released the letter.
She didn't heroically jump on the grenade. Her info was "leaked."

My question involved the timing of this "leak."


If from July to Sept no Democrat thought it was worth investigating, even on their own to people who would corroborate Ford's story so they would have ammo, then why is it so important now ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom