SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Kav needs to act like an adult. In case anyone hasn't noticed, I'm not a fan of his.

Christ, Brent. Stop trying to ride the GD fence. You know he's a turd, and there are other conservatives they could've picked who wouldn't have had these issues.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I haven't yet heard your concern that a woman (women) might very possibly have been sexually assaulted and left to deal with the well known harm that results from those crimes (in addition to being publicly vilified by conservatives everywhere), while the perp is rewarded with a seat on the United States Supreme Court? Does that possible injustice weigh just as heavily?

You may have expressed that concern and I just chose to overlook it.

There is great concern. I mentioned on FB and in private convos that Ford still won. Why? She gave a voice to other victims. She was heard by the Federal Government. The result might not turn out the way she wants it to, but she was HEARD. That's huge.

And Fade: he is a turd, but is he guilty of sexual assault? See my other recent posts. Were there better choices? I'd have to imagine so. And again, just because he's a turd and not worth a nomination doesn't make him guilty of sexual assault.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I covered that part earlier. I am concentrating on only the assault allegation. Whether he's qualified to serve as SCOTUS is another matter (and I don't believe he is).

At this point, who the fvck cares about the assault anymore, as to what it has to do with his nomination for the SC (as humans of course we should continue to be concerned). He hasn't been charged with a crime and he isn't going to be charged with one either. The prosecutor who conducted the questioning of Ford is correct that with what she has offered, no reasonable DA would seek an indictment. The only issue is he's a lying sack of human fecal material who probably wouldn't know the truth if it kicked him square in his gonads. We know 99.9% as much about what happened between him and Ford as we are ever going to know. But what should keep him off the court is his lack of composure when the going got tough, and the almost certain lies he told while under oath.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Joe Donnelly isn't exactly the epitome of legislative courage. What a spineless piece of stool. The fact is, we all have enough information to know which way to vote on Kavanaugh. He's already declared himself unfit because of his published views on presidential power and his demeanor last week. We all know why republicans are going to vote yes. For Donnelly the only reason is nakedly political. Polls show his Senate race to be a toss-up. Indiana is a trump-loving state. He'd support Roy Moore for the Supreme Court if it meant reelection. I wouldn't break my vow of voting entirely for democrats even if it meant voting for this guy, but he sure makes it tough. At least he's not a republican, so I'm pretty sure that means he doesn't like to assault women, sleep with teenage girls or diddle little boys. That's something I suppose.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

At this point, who the fvck cares about the assault anymore, as to what it has to do with his nomination for the SC (as humans of course we should continue to be concerned). He hasn't been charged with a crime and he isn't going to be charged with one either. The prosecutor who conducted the questioning of Ford is correct that with what she has offered, no reasonable DA would seek an indictment. The only issue is he's a lying sack of human fecal material who probably wouldn't know the truth if it kicked him square in his gonads. We know 99.9% as much about what happened between him and Ford as we are ever going to know. But what should keep him off the court is his lack of composure when the going got tough, and the almost certain lies he told while under oath.

I would guess a lot of victims are concerned.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

the almost certain lies he told while under oath.

This. It was so disappointing that the Dem Senators let him get away with his non-answers, obfuscation, dissembling, and outright lies. I'm sure the 5-min time limit had a lot to do with that - they all had Big Points to make, so they chose to let the "little things" slide. I wish just one of them would have spent his/her whole 5 minutes on the meaning of Devil's Triangle - nail him to the wall for lying to the committee about something small. That's what they got Bill Clinton on, after all.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I would guess a lot of victims are concerned.

You completely miss my point Brent, as usual. Of course the victims are concerned, as we should all be for them. I'm talking about the context of his nomination. His lying disqualifies him, and it doesn't matter what he lied about. Your fence sitting, waiting around to hear about the assault allegations make it LOOK like you are care about such things at the same time wanting to give the poor little frat boy the benefit of the doubt. Get out of the middle of the road on this one, at least.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

You completely miss my point Brent, as usual. Of course the victims are concerned, as we should all be for them. I'm talking about the context of his nomination. His lying disqualifies him, and it doesn't matter what he lied about. Your fence sitting, waiting around to hear about the assault allegations make it LOOK like you are care about such things at the same time wanting to give the poor little frat boy the benefit of the doubt. Get out of the middle of the road on this one, at least.

Wrong again. I have made it clear he is not fit for SCOTUS.

However, is he a sex offender? We don't know (yet). There IS a difference. You're not qualified for SCOTUS. Neither am I. But are we sex offenders? Nope (giving you the benefit of the doubt here ).

It's a giant Venn diagram. If you're a sex offender, you are not fit for SCOTUS. But if you're not fit for SCOTUS doesn't mean you're a sex offender.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

At this point, who the fvck cares about the assault anymore

Careful, now you are treading into the conservative, "See? They don't really care about her. This is all just a hit job." territory.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Careful, now you are treading into the conservative, "See? They don't really care about her. This is all just a hit job." territory.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I interpreted it as "don't care about anything as long as he's not SCOTUS." Label him whatever, even if he's not guilty, just don't let him be a SCOTUS, dam evidence.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Careful, now you are treading into the conservative, "See? They don't really care about her. This is all just a hit job." territory.

Right. It does tend to reinforce that notion.

A significant difference with Kavanaugh and Joe Blow, and why there's a need to be careful with unsubstantiated allegations, is there are 100 milion people already with a motive to malign Kavanaugh in any way they can. So I think we should be careful with these kinds of things. We're really not being very careful at all though.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Right. It does tend to reinforce that notion.

A significant difference with Kavanaugh and Joe Blow, and why there's a need to be careful with unsubstantiated allegations, is there are 100 milion people already with a motive to malign Kavanaugh in any way they can. So I think we should be careful with these kinds of things. We're really not being very careful at all though.

It sets a precedent.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

And again, just because he's a turd and not worth a nomination doesn't make him guilty of sexual assault.

LITERALLY NO ONE IS ARGUING THlS

And while very important to take seriously, the only remaining important aspect of the sexual assault claims is how we can handle them better. The statute of limitations has run out in every case that has been made public so far from what I understand. It's also important that we continue to support these survivors by acknowledging them and affording them the investigations they deserve. If that means delaying a SCOTUS nomination a year or more, so be it. The precedent of leaving a seat open that long was already set by Mitch McConnell. There is no reason to rush this other than partisan or malicious intent. If he's truly the right guy, he can stand to wait until this investigation has been exhausted.

What we need to learn as a country is how to handle these accusations and how they should impact us and our government. We can also have a conversation about what consent is, what is and isn't appropriate behavior for a nominee while being questioned, etc.

Maybe, eventually, we can decide whether a 17-year-old's crimes should impact a genuinely remorseful and repentant person's current life 30 years later. But we haven't seen many cases of that because so few are willing to acknowledge their actions, make efforts to right the wrongs assuming the survivors don't object, and change their ways. And I'm not talking about someone who is exposed 30 years later and then goes through the apology tour. I'm talking about people like Cory Booker who acknowledged his past, was remorseful, and has made efforts to fix things. I can't think of anyone else who offered themselves up like that; and maybe he published that because someone else was going to. I have no idea.

I really think everyone on this board should try to watch the Consent documentary/episode by Vice. The last 10 minutes were the most interesting.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I have seen different. Yes, I agree we need to handle these things better. From my POV, I have seen he's not fit because he's a sex offender. Wrong. That hasn't been proven.

Believe me, he has enough doubts aside from that claim to eliminate him. I simply don't want him labeled unjustly. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I simply don't want him labeled unjustly.

You really want to play the protector of a privileged, white, 1%er?

Good grief. This doesn't make you the better person and this isn't a zero-sum game. Straight, white, Christian men don't need or deserve the same effort as any of the protected groups.

He'd run you over with his car if it meant advancing his own.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

You really want to play the protector of a privileged, white, 1%er?

Good grief. This doesn't make you the better person and this isn't a zero-sum game. Straight, white, Christian men don't need or deserve the same effort as any of the protected groups.

He'd run you over with his car if it meant advancing his own.

He could be a serial killer. But if he is innocent of this charge, he's innocent of this charge. Plain and simple. Please, understand that basic concept. Just because he's a straight, white, Christian male, doesn't mean he's automatically guilty.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

You really want to play the protector of a privileged, white, 1%er?

Good grief. This doesn't make you the better person and this isn't a zero-sum game. Straight, white, Christian men don't need or deserve the same effort as any of the protected groups.

He'd run you over with his car if it meant advancing his own.

Minorities should have more privileges than white men. You said it. That's sad. What happened to "All men are created equal"?

 

[jerphisch]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Minorities should have more privileges than white men. You said it. That's sad. What happened to "All men are created equal"?

No. He didn't.

 

[The Rube]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

No. He didn't.

Yes, he actually did. I literally sat back, read, re-read, then re-read it. Read the bold.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Just because he's a straight, white, Christian male, doesn't mean he's automatically guilty.

Said literally no one.

You are the most quixotic and bromidic debater I've ever come across.




and if you need change for those words, I have singles.