Jump to content

Your new Supreme Court nominee is....


southsider2k5
 Share

Recommended Posts

Look youre all missing the point. The Republicans are the victims. The Democrats had information that disqualifies Kavanaugh. Instead of bringing it to the Republicans right away, they sat on it until it would do the most damage and possibly ensure that there would be no confirmation before the next election. This is really really unfair. As you know the Republican's brought Judge Garland's nomination to a vote immediately and did not delay.

Now since the Democrats waited so long and there isnt enough time to push through a new nominee, Kavanaugh should be put on the Supreme Court because otherwise its just unfair to the Republicans. 

Thats basically Graham's argument. Im starting to think he doesnt even believe Kavanugh, but he is worried about what happens if they cant force him through before November. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GoSox05 said:

Is there a day set yet for when they are supposed to vote on this?

 

Judiciary Committee vote tomorrow morning. Other Senate votes over the weekend, per C-SPAN just now, confirmation timeline would put full Senate vote Monday or Tuesday. Senate has a whole bunch of arcane rules that generally mean you can't ram things through instantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Steve9347 said:

I like this waste of time when we all know the GOP is going to just jam this fuck through.

 

Maybe they will, maybe they wont. But eventually this type of behavior catches up to parties/govts.

The reason they want to jam it through is they are scared about November. If they were confident, they wouldnt be rushing. Their actions show just how worried they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Look youre all missing the point. The Republicans are the victims. The Democrats had information that disqualifies Kavanaugh. Instead of bringing it to the Republicans right away, they sat on it until it would do the most damage and possibly ensure that there would be no confirmation before the next election. This is really really unfair. As you know the Republican's brought Judge Garland's nomination to a vote immediately and did not delay.

Now since the Democrats waited so long and there isnt enough time to push through a new nominee, Kavanaugh should be put on the Supreme Court because otherwise its just unfair to the Republicans. 

Thats basically Graham's argument. Im starting to think he doesnt even believe Kavanugh, but he is worried about what happens if they cant force him through before November. 

Agreed. There's no other reason why they won't allow an FBI investigation (took 3 days apparently in the Anita Hill case) or to subpoena Mark Judge for his testimony. Placate the Dems and do it. There is plenty of time to confirm him. I think they're terrified about what will be found and/or how Judge will testify at the hearing.

End of the day, I believe Ford, I believe the Dems absolutely used her to their advantage and I think the smartest move by the Repubs would have been to immediately remove Kavanaugh and put someone else up for confirmation. Someone knows better than me - can a lame duck session still confirm the appointment? So they have until January? If so, they can still do that. Get rid of this headache now. There are plenty of conservative judges to choose from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

You're insisting on talking about anything but Kavanaugh's alleged sexual assaults and rapes.

The "moral dilemma" you're posing is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you want to talk about why people may or may not step in in situations like that, the bystander effect, or anything like that, feel free to start another thread. This thread is about accused attempted rapist/actual rapist Brett Kavanaugh and the allegations against him, not what one of the alleged should or shouldn't have done when they saw Kavanaugh lined up for a rape.

When people saying I am victim shaming and basically saying I am shitty person for it I am going to say something. That was NOT what I was doing and I am going to try and get that across. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BigHurt3515 said:

When people saying I am victim shaming and basically saying I am shitty person for it I am going to say something. That was NOT what I was doing and I am going to try and get that across. 

Let me help you. I think this is what you meant:

1) Victims are victims, plain and simple. No one deserves to be assaulted, no one asked to be assaulted. There are victims and there are criminals under the law. There is no "contributory fault" in criminal law. You don't assign blame to the victim...they are just the victim.

2) In speaking about crimes and of circumstances around those crimes, you can say that some people didn't act in the best way possible and that they may have increased their risk of harm unnecessarily in a given situation. You are criticizing their actions without saying they are deserving of the crime or that they are at fault for the crime. If you walk down an alley in a shitty neighborhood in the middle of the night screaming "I have 10 grand in cash in my pocket" and you get robbed, no one would say that you are not a victim of a crime or that you deserved to be a victim or that your actions justified the crime. What you are saying is, you increased the risk of harm with your actions and when advising others on what to do/what not to do, that may be an example of what not to do. 

If I had a daughter in college and she went to parties where she knew the drinks were being spiked and knew that girls were passing out and possibly being raped, guess what, I would advise her NOT to do that. Not because she would DESERVE to be assaulted/raped for going, not because she would JUSTIFY the assault/rape by going, but because it increases her risk of being the victim and it's just not a smart thing to do. These are things you can comment on after the fact as not smart actions without pointing to the victim and saying you got what you deserved.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republican strategy here was IMO stupid. Apparently they thought Dr. Ford would come in, and they would easily rip her story to shreds. That's the only thing that makes sense. 

Because right now, to vote to confirm is saying she is not credible. You can't say she is credible and vote to confirm, well, you can, but it makes no sense. They already said there was no need for an FBI investigation. If they called for one now,  after denying earlier, they would be admitting their perfect candidate may not be believable. 

I think they either pull the nomination or promise Murkowski and Collins the world for their votes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Let me help you. I think this is what you meant:

1) Victims are victims, plain and simple. No one deserves to be assaulted, no one asked to be assaulted. There are victims and there are criminals under the law. There is no "contributory fault" in criminal law. You don't assign blame to the victim...they are just the victim.

2) In speaking about crimes and of circumstances around those crimes, you can say that some people didn't act in the best way possible and that they may have increased their risk of harm unnecessarily in a given situation. You are criticizing their actions without saying they are deserving of the crime or that they are at fault for the crime. If you walk down an alley in a shitty neighborhood in the middle of the night screaming "I have 10 grand in cash in my pocket" and you get robbed, no one would say that you are not a victim of a crime or that you deserved to be a victim or that your actions justified the crime. What you are saying is, you increased the risk of harm with your actions and when advising others on what to do/what not to do, that may be an example of what not to do. 

If I had a daughter in college and she went to parties where she knew the drinks were being spiked and knew that girls were passing out and possibly being raped, guess what, I would advise her NOT to do that. Not because she would DESERVE to be assaulted/raped for going, not because she would JUSTIFY the assault/rape by going, but because it increases her risk of being the victim and it's just not a smart thing to do. These are things you can comment on after the fact as not smart actions without pointing to the victim and saying you got what you deserved.

Exactly. That pretty much sums up everything I was saying. But of course people take things out of context or think I mean one thing when I clearly say that is not what I meant. Maybe I am a little more harsh about it but anyway you put it going to these parties over and over after seeing everything she did is not something you should keep on doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

The Republican strategy here was IMO stupid. Apparently they thought Dr. Ford would come in, and they would easily rip her story to shreds. That's the only thing that makes sense. 

Because right now, to vote to confirm is saying she is not credible. You can't say she is credible and vote to confirm, well, you can, but it makes no sense. They already said there was no need for an FBI investigation. If they called for one now,  after denying earlier, they would be admitting their perfect candidate may not be believable. 

I think they either pull the nomination or promise Murkowski and Collins the world for their votes. 

I think their strategy was to try and make her not testify. Once she called their bluff it became a nightmare scenario. 

There is really no win here besides for Kavanaugh falling on his sword. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BigHurt3515 said:

Exactly. That pretty much sums up everything I was saying. But of course people take things out of context or think I mean one thing when I clearly say that is not what I meant. Maybe I am a little more harsh about it but anyway you put it going to these parties over and over after seeing everything she did is not something you should keep on doing.

You cartwheeled into the thread to cast shade on an accuser and seem to have zero interest in actually discussing Kavanaugh or the multiple sexual assault and rape allegations against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Let me help you. I think this is what you meant:

1) Victims are victims, plain and simple. No one deserves to be assaulted, no one asked to be assaulted. There are victims and there are criminals under the law. There is no "contributory fault" in criminal law. You don't assign blame to the victim...they are just the victim.

2) In speaking about crimes and of circumstances around those crimes, you can say that some people didn't act in the best way possible and that they may have increased their risk of harm unnecessarily in a given situation. You are criticizing their actions without saying they are deserving of the crime or that they are at fault for the crime. If you walk down an alley in a shitty neighborhood in the middle of the night screaming "I have 10 grand in cash in my pocket" and you get robbed, no one would say that you are not a victim of a crime or that you deserved to be a victim or that your actions justified the crime. What you are saying is, you increased the risk of harm with your actions and when advising others on what to do/what not to do, that may be an example of what not to do. 

If I had a daughter in college and she went to parties where she knew the drinks were being spiked and knew that girls were passing out and possibly being raped, guess what, I would advise her NOT to do that. Not because she would DESERVE to be assaulted/raped for going, not because she would JUSTIFY the assault/rape by going, but because it increases her risk of being the victim and it's just not a smart thing to do. These are things you can comment on after the fact as not smart actions without pointing to the victim and saying you got what you deserved.

Ugh.  Spinning this is not making it better.  What the victim did or did not do is not germane as to whether a crime was committed here or not.  It is only relevant if you are actively looking for someone other than the criminal to point blame at.  The need to explore the victim's actions is of zero relevance here, and serves no actual purpose.  The continual attempts to justify doing so is just victim blaming, intentional or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:

I think their strategy was to try and make her not testify. Once she called their bluff it became a nightmare scenario. 

There is really no win here besides for Kavanaugh falling on his sword. 

There are a lot of Republicans who believe losing both the House and the Senate is a reasonable price to pay for what Kavanaugh on the SC gives them. What would be interesting is if he was confirmed and Dems took them both, would they try to impeach him? I do believe if the exact opposite happened and a liberal candidate had been accused and the GOP took over, impeachment would be on the table. Hopefully, it won't come to that, and Kavanaugh and his GOP buddies do what is right for the country, and have him withdraw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...