Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 8:25:02 GMT -5
The guy who tells Democrats "Suck it up, the judicial confirmation process is a bloodsport" is complaining that Democrats are treating the judicial confirmation process as a bloodsport. A blood sport the Democrats created when they blocked Bork on purely ideological grounds. And that Republicans have exploited by not even meeting with Merrick Garland. So, what's your position? That because Democrats created this, they're not allowed to complain - but when the tables are turned, they have to put up with your bitching and moaning? That does fit well in the Trump Republican playbook: victimize everyone at every turn, and then play the victim card to the hilt when even slightly aggrieved.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,689
|
A New Low
Sept 18, 2018 8:37:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Sept 18, 2018 8:37:10 GMT -5
A blood sport the Democrats created when they blocked Bork on purely ideological grounds. And that Republicans have exploited by not even meeting with Merrick Garland. So, what's your position? That because Democrats created this, they're not allowed to complain - but when the tables are turned, they have to put up with your bitching and moaning? That does fit well in the Trump Republican playbook: victimize everyone at every turn, and then play the victim card to the hilt when even slightly aggrieved. Nope. Bloodsport is okay. Just own who created it. You can bitch all you want but know this, the way Feinstein et al handled this is classic hit piece work. Wait until hearings are closed and you got nowhere— then launch 11th hour sexual impropriety allegation that cannot be proved. It did not work in 1991. It just might work today in this ridiculous “Me Too” guilty til proven innocent environment. If Senator Feinstein were legitimately concerned with this allegation which she has known about since July, why did she not raise it with the nominee in private session or in his testimony? If Professor Ford did not wish to come forward, why did she lawyer up and take a polygraph? Just wondering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 8:50:08 GMT -5
And that Republicans have exploited by not even meeting with Merrick Garland. So, what's your position? That because Democrats created this, they're not allowed to complain - but when the tables are turned, they have to put up with your bitching and moaning? That does fit well in the Trump Republican playbook: victimize everyone at every turn, and then play the victim card to the hilt when even slightly aggrieved. Nope. Bloodsport is okay. Just own who created it. You can bitch all you want but know this, the way Feinstein et al handled this is classic hit piece work. Wait until hearings are closed and you got nowhere— then launch 11th hour sexual impropriety allegation that cannot be proved. It did not work in 1991. It just might work today in this ridiculous “Me Too” guilty til proven innocent environment. If Senator Feinstein were legitimately concerned with this allegation which she has known about since July, why did she not raise it with the nominee in private session or in his testimony? If Professor Ford did not wish to come forward, why did she lawyer up and take a polygraph? Just wondering. The way Feinstein handled it was exactly how DR Ford wanted her too... No matter how she handled it, you would have a problem. You don't get to decide when a person who claims to be a victim gets to step forward. Stop doing that, it makes you sound like an idiot. *I would like you to announce your claims of sexual assault on my preferred timeline, thx. Feinstein did what she did to protect Dr. Ford, and her lawyer has said the same thing. The Wapo reporter who broke the story has a detailed timeline of how all this came about (It's in this thread) that includes Feinstein going back to the woman multiple times asking if she would like to come forward. You're basically saying Feinstein should have outed her.. That's absurd. Why do you routinely dismiss facts in favor of your preferred conspiracy theory?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,689
|
A New Low
Sept 18, 2018 8:56:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Sept 18, 2018 8:56:04 GMT -5
Nope. Bloodsport is okay. Just own who created it. You can bitch all you want but know this, the way Feinstein et al handled this is classic hit piece work. Wait until hearings are closed and you got nowhere— then launch 11th hour sexual impropriety allegation that cannot be proved. It did not work in 1991. It just might work today in this ridiculous “Me Too” guilty til proven innocent environment. If Senator Feinstein were legitimately concerned with this allegation which she has known about since July, why did she not raise it with the nominee in private session or in his testimony? If Professor Ford did not wish to come forward, why did she lawyer up and take a polygraph? Just wondering. The way Feinstein handled it was exactly how DR Ford wanted her too... No matter how she handled it, you would have a problem. You don't get to decide when a person who claims to be a victim gets to step forward. Stop doing that, it makes you look like an idiot. Feinstein did what she did to protect Dr. Ford, and her lawyer has said the same thing. The Wapo reporter who broke the story has a detailed timeline of how all this came about (It's in this thread) that includes Feinstein going back to the woman multiple times asking if she would like to come forward. You're basically saying Feinstein should have outed her.. That's absurd. Why do you routinely dismiss facts in favor of your preferred conspiracy theory? Everything you just wrote would ring much more true if the Democrats has not started the hearings off with a circus and then waited for close of testimony to launch this. Sorry. Not buying it.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Sept 18, 2018 8:59:13 GMT -5
Nope. Bloodsport is okay. Just own who created it. Republicans with Abe Fortas? Bork is a bygone day of civility and function compared to today. 6 Republicans voted against Bork. 2 Democrats voted for him. His nomination was taken up even though Democrats controlled the Senate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 9:01:29 GMT -5
The way Feinstein handled it was exactly how DR Ford wanted her too... No matter how she handled it, you would have a problem. You don't get to decide when a person who claims to be a victim gets to step forward. Stop doing that, it makes you look like an idiot. Feinstein did what she did to protect Dr. Ford, and her lawyer has said the same thing. The Wapo reporter who broke the story has a detailed timeline of how all this came about (It's in this thread) that includes Feinstein going back to the woman multiple times asking if she would like to come forward. You're basically saying Feinstein should have outed her.. That's absurd. Why do you routinely dismiss facts in favor of your preferred conspiracy theory? Everything you just wrote would ring much more true if the Democrats has not started the hearings off with a circus and then waited for close of testimony to launch this. Sorry. Not buying it. Everything I said is true, backed on facts.. Everything you said is what you feel, based on your cynicism.. Cynicism that only applies to Democrats. You keep crying that this was brought last minute. Since this was thrown in last minute, and the vote isn't going to be Thursday this is over, right? Or was this some arbitrary timeline Republicans created that can be adjusted accordingly?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,689
|
A New Low
Sept 18, 2018 9:03:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Sept 18, 2018 9:03:49 GMT -5
I think she absolutely should be heard. As should he with a chance to confront his accuser.
If he did this he is unfit for the Court.
If he did not, this is rank character assassination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 9:09:42 GMT -5
"rank character assassination."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 9:15:52 GMT -5
The reaction from the White House.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,689
|
A New Low
Sept 18, 2018 9:28:47 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Sept 18, 2018 9:28:47 GMT -5
"rank character assassination." I am sorry. Do you not agree that if this allegation is false that it would represent rank character assassination? Really? If he did this he should not only not be conformed, he should leave the bench. But what if she is mistaken? Or worse, lying? Any repercussions?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Sept 18, 2018 9:39:12 GMT -5
By coming forward, she's subjecting herself to death threats, all sorts of political and professional retribution, and a ton of harrassment.
You're suggesting there's no repercussions to coming forward whatsoever? What world are you living in?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,689
|
A New Low
Sept 18, 2018 9:40:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Sept 18, 2018 9:40:10 GMT -5
By coming forward, she's subjecting herself to death threats, all sorts of political and professional retribution, and a ton of harrassment. You're suggesting there's no repercussions to coming forward whatsoever? What world are you living in? I meant legal repercussions for lying not for coming forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 9:48:45 GMT -5
"rank character assassination." I am sorry. Do you not agree that if this allegation is false that it would represent rank character assassination? Really? If he did this he should not only not be conformed, he should leave the bench. But what if she is mistaken? Or worse, lying? Any repercussions? Well there's a huge difference between "mistaken" and "lying"... She could have mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else, the trail of evidence suggests she's not lying about the incident. One is malicious, one is not. My comment is showing you that is already happening here. You yourself have already basically accused her of lying.. The MAGA media and their allies are already spreading conspiracy theories. What if she is found to be truthful? Any repercussions? Probably not... Both parties deserve to have their story heard. Both parties deserve to be respected.. It's a lifetime appointment, these are serious allegations (doesn't make them true), so let's get down to the bottom of it. Shouldn't that be priority #1? Apparently the White House and Republicans in general don't think so..
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,803
|
Post by njhoya78 on Sept 18, 2018 10:03:10 GMT -5
Gut sense here. . .nothing more. I'm thinking that the delay in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to next Monday is designed to see if anything else negative as to Kavanaugh comes out; just buying some time. If it does, the White House will pressure him to withdraw as a nominee, and will instead replace him with another conservative jurist (probably female). If nothing else comes out, they'll conduct the hearing as scheduled on Monday, call no other "witnesses" except for Ford and Kavanaugh (effectively, just a window dressing hearing so as to enable Republican candidates to say that Ford was heard), and proceed to vote on the nomination before next week is done.
Then again, I've been wrong before.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Sept 18, 2018 10:20:05 GMT -5
Gut sense here. . .nothing more. I'm thinking that the delay in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to next Monday is designed to see if anything else negative as to Kavanaugh comes out; just buying some time. If it does, the White House will pressure him to withdraw as a nominee, and will instead replace him with another conservative jurist (probably female). Trump didn't want to fire Rob Porter - and you think he's going to pull a Supreme Court nomination over this? Kavanaugh is his guy because of the executive power stuff, this is not a "swap him out for another vote against Roe" situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 10:27:54 GMT -5
And that Republicans have exploited by not even meeting with Merrick Garland. So, what's your position? That because Democrats created this, they're not allowed to complain - but when the tables are turned, they have to put up with your bitching and moaning? That does fit well in the Trump Republican playbook: victimize everyone at every turn, and then play the victim card to the hilt when even slightly aggrieved. Nope. Bloodsport is okay. Just own who created it. The Republican who refuses to own the racist conspiracy theorist Republican in the White House continues to insist that Democrats own every single thing every Democrat has ever done, said, or thought.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,803
|
Post by njhoya78 on Sept 18, 2018 11:08:29 GMT -5
Gut sense here. . .nothing more. I'm thinking that the delay in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to next Monday is designed to see if anything else negative as to Kavanaugh comes out; just buying some time. If it does, the White House will pressure him to withdraw as a nominee, and will instead replace him with another conservative jurist (probably female). Trump didn't want to fire Rob Porter - and you think he's going to pull a Supreme Court nomination over this? Kavanaugh is his guy because of the executive power stuff, this is not a "swap him out for another vote against Roe" situation. I think the optics on this are different than with Porter, because of the lifetime appointment/likely overturning of established precedent in Roe v. Wade and the like. Trump won't withdraw the nomination, because of his ego and public perception of abandonment of a nominee. He'll just put great pressure on Kavanaugh to withdraw his name from consideration.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,434
|
Post by hoyarooter on Sept 18, 2018 19:56:17 GMT -5
There's really not much point in rehashing ancient history, but Robert Bork disqualified himself for a seat on the Supremen Court when he carried out the Saturday Night Massacre. He couldn't have been approved by Democrats for dogcatcher after that.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 18, 2018 23:01:59 GMT -5
There's really not much point in rehashing ancient history, but Robert Bork disqualified himself for a seat on the Supremen Court when he carried out the Saturday Night Massacre. He couldn't have been approved by Democrats for dogcatcher after that. Robert Bork was confirmed by unanimous consent of the United States Senate in 1982 for the D.C. Court of Appeals.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,689
|
A New Low
Sept 19, 2018 4:23:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Sept 19, 2018 4:23:41 GMT -5
There's really not much point in rehashing ancient history, but Robert Bork disqualified himself for a seat on the Supremen Court when he carried out the Saturday Night Massacre. He couldn't have been approved by Democrats for dogcatcher after that. Robert Bork was confirmed by unanimous consent of the United States Senate in 1982 for the D.C. Court of Appeals. How dare you inject a fact here?
|
|