Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced that he would retire

[Key Board]

No, I mean.

He's not going to run in the Democrat primary

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

i am not sure why anyone is surprised. The American People gave all three branches of government to the same political party. They surely only did this because they wanted it, right?

Funny how close this sounds to "she chose to get drunk, so surely she was asking to be raped, right?"

In other words, stop saying asinine things. It has long worn out its welcome.

Originally Posted by Demi.

Why assume he's a sexual predator when the FBI report could find no evidence to support the claim?

"I looked nowhere and found nothing."

If there's no evidence, why did the White House hamstring the investigation and not allow them to interview the vast number of people who actually tried to come forward with information?

[The Green One]

Originally Posted by GDB

"I looked nowhere and found nothing."

If there's no evidence, why did the White House hamstring the investigation and not allow them to interview the vast number of people who actually tried to come forward with information?

Because HURRY HURRY HURRY get Supreme Court majority before midterms.

Also because this is how sexual assault victims get treated more often than not. Their life turned into a three ring circus and everything about them getting put under a microscope and gossiped about. And if you're assaulter is rich and/or powerful enough more often than not it gets swept under the rug and ignored, while you're stuck with harassment and abuse for years to come until America moves onto the next scandal.

[Key Board]

Roe and Wade next
and the immigration act of 1965 after that

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by GDB

Funny how close this sounds to "she chose to get drunk, so surely she was asking to be raped, right?"

In other words, stop saying asinine things. It has long worn out its welcome.



"I looked nowhere and found nothing."

If there's no evidence, why did the White House hamstring the investigation and not allow them to interview the vast number of people who actually tried to come forward with information?

Because they were on a clock and the dems were just trying to delay it as long as possible so they can win a couple seats on the senate to have majority and eject every one of Trumps supreme court nominees into oblivion. Or maybe find some other kind of dirt on Kavanaugh to convince one of the undecided to vote against Kavanaugh. Similar to their attempt at accusing him of perjury; they would be willing to do anything to see that Trumps nomination does not pass. Two progressive groups even tried to bribe senator Collins by threatening to fund her future opponent if she does not vote 'no' for Kavanaugh.

They interviewed several people that Ford said would be able to corroborate her story(including her long time friend); not only could they not corroborate her story but they had no clue what she was talking about. They did not question the people of lesser importance to the case. It doesn't matter how much they investigated this there would never be the evidence required to find him guilty. The dems may have succeeded in swaying a senate vote or two if the investigation was prolonged long enough, but I see no reason for republicans to shoot themselves in the foot over an unsubstantiated claim that had sufficient investigation.

[GDB]

The "clock" was until the end of the year. Also, midterms aren't for another month. So no, that's not a real reason to not investigate. Especially when you have so many people going to the FBI itself with information.

Also, for a life time appointment, if "more dirt" can be found to convince an undecided, then maybe he shouldn't be given a life time appointment to the highest court in the country. And if they hadn't buried their heads in the sand, they might've actually found something from everyone who was trying to contact the FBI.

And there's no "attempt to accuse him of perjury". He 100% committed perjury. If on nothing else, when he lied about calling his MMF threesome a "drinking game".

FYI: it's not a bribe to give money to a political opponent if the current one doesn't vote the way you want. That's Citizens United in action. It's also what the GOP does to literally every member who doesn't vote in-line with them. It's how the tea party radicalized them in the first place. But please, tell me more about how it's bad for normal citizens to pool money together to influence politics, but totally cool for billionaires and shadowy shell corporations to do so.

And yet another point: it doesn't matter if he's guilty or not. This was a job interview (not a trial, despite the GOP trying to put the first accuser on trial (and ignoring all the other accusers)) that, by all accounts, he failed. He lost his temper, lied to Congress, and had multiple allegations of sexual assault and/or rape. The bar was NEVER guilty, it was "does he seem qualified for the court". And the answer was a resounding No, but the GOP wanted a partisan yes-man who thinks the President is 100% above the law. That's why it HAD to be Kavanaugh. He was the only option that would shield Trump.

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by GDB

The "clock" was until the end of the year. Also, midterms aren't for another month. So no, that's not a real reason to not investigate. Especially when you have so many people going to the FBI itself with information.

It is, because it wasn't a certainty that Kavanaugh would win the vote. The whole process would need to be repeated if he didn't, and that's another 2-3month process.

The people who were going forward with information were a bunch of college students who banded together to claim that Kavanaugh drunk more than he let on. Kavanaugh never denied that he sometimes drunk more than he should have; the argument is whether he drank so much that he blacked out. And honestly, there isn't evidence to know whether he knowingly blacked out and hid the truth; it never happened; or he never recalled an instance like that.

Also, for a life time appointment, if "more dirt" can be found to convince an undecided, then maybe he shouldn't be given a life time appointment to the highest court in the country. And if they hadn't buried their heads in the sand, they might've actually found something from everyone who was trying to contact the FBI.

The few mistakes that any college student makes from 30-some years ago, says very little about a persons character in the present. He had no political standing back then and a few stupid things that almost everyone does around that age should not be indicative of whether or not a supreme court nominee is suitable for the job.

And there's no "attempt to accuse him of perjury". He 100% committed perjury. If on nothing else, when he lied about calling his MMF threesome a drinking game.

Seven witnesses — including the classmate credited in the yearbook for inventing the game — have corroborated Kavanaughs account of devil's triangle.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...inking-game%2F

So please do tell how this constitutes perjury?

FYI: it's not a bribe to give money to a political opponent if the current one doesn't vote the way you want. That's Citizens United in action. It's also what the GOP does to literally every member who doesn't vote in-line with them. It's how the tea party radicalized them in the first place. But please, tell me more about how it's bad for normal citizens to pool money together to influence politics, but totally cool for billionaires and shadowy shell corporations to do so.

Semantics. They extorted and bribed her with money. It's a confirmation of how low they will go to have their way. Voting against your political opponent and funding your party is common sense, but to trade a Senator's vote for political donations? It's a strong-arm tactic.

And yet another point: it doesn't matter if he's guilty or not. This was a job interview (not a trial, despite the GOP trying to put the first accuser on trial (and ignoring all the other accusers)) that, by all accounts, he failed. He lost his temper, lied to Congress, and had multiple allegations of sexual assault and/or rape. The bar was NEVER guilty, it was "does he seem qualified for the court". And the answer was a resounding No, but the GOP wanted a partisan yes-man who thinks the President is 100% above the law. That's why it HAD to be Kavanaugh. He was the only option that would shield Trump.

Please, it stopped being an interview when they accused him of sexual assault. No one likes to be wrongly accused of a heinous crime. It slings both you and your family through the mud because of the vast array of people that will believe the accuser no matter what and have no sense of innocent until proven guilty. There were many holes in Julie Swetnick testimony so they deemed it not worth investigating.

He's a republican, he's not a yes-man but it's obvious he's going to side with the other republicans on most issues. Not Trump specifically. That's what the supreme court has always been. Dem judges voting one way, repub judges voting another and a moderate to break the tie. This isn't always the case, but that's generally how it works.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Demi.

It is, because it wasn't a certainty that Kavanaugh would win the vote. The whole process would need to be repeated if he didn't, and that's another 2-3month process.

And the problem with that is what exactly? We're not talking about some inconsequential government post here. The Supreme Court will decide on grave issues that could influence America for generations. If that takes another couple of months to decide whether or not he is the right person for that job then so be it. Republicans certainly didn't have any problem waiting several months the last time a judge had to be nominated.

Originally Posted by Demi.

The people who were going forward with information were a bunch of college students who banded together to claim that Kavanaugh drunk more than he let on. Kavanaugh never denied that he sometimes drunk more than he should have; the argument is whether he drank so much that he blacked out. And honestly, there isn't evidence to know whether he knowingly blacked out and hid the truth; it never happened; or he never recalled an instance like that.

Of course he didn't, he wasn't conscious at the time. Kavanaugh's class mates have portrayed him as a frequent drinker to the point of becoming hostile to others. Kavanaugh has stated that he never blacked out due to excess drinking but it is, to put it nicely, implausible to believe that he has a complete recollection of his actions while being drunk. Maybe he assaulted Ford during one of these gaps in his memory. Maybe he shoved his penis in Ramirez' face in another. We will probably never know but unfortunately most likely neither will Kavanaugh while the victims will have to live with the experience for the rest of their life.

Originally Posted by Demi.

The few mistakes that any college student makes from 30-some years ago, says very little about a persons character in the present. He had no political standing back then and a few stupid things that almost everyone does around that age should not be indicative of whether or not a supreme court nominee is suitable for the job.

But he did have a political standing when he was interrupting people, turning questions back, dodging questions with unrelated stories about his past, yelling at senators, being wildly emotional throughout the hearing and blaming left-wing groups of being responsible for the accusations against him with no proof whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Demi.

Please, it stopped being an interview when they accused him of sexual assault. No one likes to be wrongly accused of a heinous crime. It slings both you and your family through the mud because of the vast array of people that will believe the accuser no matter what and have no sense of innocent until proven guilty. There were many holes in Julie Swetnick testimony so they deemed it not worth investigating.

It does not stop being a job interview when being accused. The entire point of these hearings is to determine whether or not he has the qualifications to be on the Supreme Court and the accusations are a part of that. If he snaps under the pressure, then he's not qualified. Any candidate has to face a harsh crossfire and if the extent has escalated lately, then that's the result of sliding off into the extremist corner that America has consistently steered towards over the last year. A judge is required to be calm, unbiased, impartial and even-handed. Kavanaugh's behavior during the hearing has pointed quite spectacularly into the opposite direction.

Originally Posted by Demi.

He's a republican, he's not a yes-man but it's obvious he's going to side with the other republicans on most issues. Not Trump specifically. That's what the supreme court has always been. Dem judges voting one way, repub judges voting another and a moderate to break the tie. This isn't always the case, but that's generally how it works.

Like there is a difference in being a yes-man to Trump or a yes-man to republicans anymore. Also while that's a nice story we are quickly approaching the point of having no moderates anymore. Already the balance has tipped dangerously to one side. This is not particularly Kavanaugh's fault but it is still a massive issue considering the power the Supreme Court wields.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GDB

And there's no "attempt to accuse him of perjury". He 100% committed perjury. If on nothing else, when he lied about calling his MMF threesome a "drinking game".

Maybe not 100%. You'd have to prove that the expression - which, after all, is just slang, and not that common - wasn't the name of a drinking game among his group of friends.

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

And the problem with that is what exactly? We're not talking about some inconsequential government post here. The Supreme Court will decide on grave issues that could influence America for generations. If that takes another couple of months to decide whether or not he is the right person for that job then so be it. Republicans certainly didn't have any problem waiting several months the last time a judge had to be nominated.

Potentially giving the dems power in the senate before a new supreme court nominee is elected is the problem for the Republicans as a party. I have no doubt the dems would do the exact same thing as pushing their nominee into the supreme court is far more important than some accusations that happened over 30years ago. They didn't completely ignore the allegations but they're not going to sit around and twiddle their thumbs until every last person is interviewed.

Literally every republican nominee that made it into the supreme court is going to influence the country in the same way. The party with the majority makes the rules.

Of course he didn't, he wasn't conscious at the time. Kavanaugh's class mates have portrayed him as a frequent drinker to the point of becoming hostile to others. Kavanaugh has stated that he never blacked out due to excess drinking but it is, to put it nicely, implausible to believe that he has a complete recollection of his actions while being drunk. Maybe he assaulted Ford during one of these gaps in his memory. Maybe he shoved his penis in Ramirez' face in another. We will probably never know but unfortunately most likely neither will Kavanaugh while the victims will have to live with the experience for the rest of their life.

Isn't it only one classmate who said he was a belligerent drinker? He need only tell the truth from his point of view to not be subject to perjury. Whether or not he blacked out wasn't the point I was making. As far as Ford is concerned, it isn't Kavanaugh denial of the claim that makes me think it didn't happen, it was the other people that were interviewed that claimed to have no knowledge of it. People that Ford said would be able to corroborate her story. Either way, it doesn't make sense to label him as a sexual predator when that fact was never proved. If I remember correctly, that's what what this debate was originally about in the first place.

But he did have a political standing when he was interrupting people, turning questions back, dodging questions with unrelated stories about his past, yelling at senators, being wildly emotional throughout the hearing and blaming left-wing groups of being responsible for the accusations against him with no proof whatsoever.

He was emotional, but if those accusations were untrue I feel he has every right to be. He also apologized for his testimony. I mean there was no proof whatsoever that he sexually assaulted Ford, but that didn't stop people from harassing him about it before evidence was provided.

It does not stop being a job interview when being accused. The entire point of these hearings is to determine whether or not he has the qualifications to be on the Supreme Court and the accusations are a part of that. If he snaps under the pressure, then he's not qualified. Any candidate has to face a harsh crossfire and if the extent has escalated lately, then that's the result of sliding off into the extremist corner that America has consistently steered towards over the last year. A judge is required to be calm, unbiased, impartial and even-handed. Kavanaugh's behavior during the hearing has pointed quite spectacularly into the opposite direction.

The questioned being answered and the statements made are not what you expect from a job interview. So why call it one? He was under investigation by the FBI and under scrutiny from multiple unsubstantiated claims. It all came crashing onto him so suddenly and if these claims are all false then he has a right to be angry. Being employed in the highest position of the judicial branch doesn't mean you have to be devoid of emotion.

Like there is a difference in being a yes-man to Trump or a yes-man to republicans anymore. Also while that's a nice story we are quickly approaching the point of having no moderates anymore. This is not particularly Kavanaugh's fault but it is still a massive issue considering the power the Supreme Court wields.

How often do you get a supreme court justice that's completely impartial and votes outside of party lines on a regular basis? My only point is that most of the supreme court justices do the same thing Kavanaugh will do. They're yes-men/women to their political party. Trumps second or third pick wouldn't of been any different. The dems just wanted to block Trumps nominee until the Senate was no longer in the Republicans favor.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Demi.

It is, because it wasn't a certainty that Kavanaugh would win the vote. The whole process would need to be repeated if he didn't, and that's another 2-3month process.

Again, the SCOTUS is important. If there's that much question as to whether he's qualified, then he shouldn't be voted in. Gorsuch didn't have this level of question.

Originally Posted by Demi.

The few mistakes that any college student makes from 30-some years ago, says very little about a persons character in the present. He had no political standing back then and a few stupid things that almost everyone does around that age should not be indicative of whether or not a supreme court nominee is suitable for the job.

No one I associate with has done what he allegedly did. I believe most people can say that. Raping, gang raping, or attempting either of these is NOT something "almost everyone does".

Seven witnesses — including the classmate credited in the yearbook for inventing the game — have corroborated Kavanaughs account of devil's triangle.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...inking-game%2F

So please do tell how this constitutes perjury?

They're just a bunch of high school students who banded together to claim that a well known term for a MMF threesome was a drinking game.

Semantics. They extorted and bribed her with money. It's a confirmation of how low they will go to have their way. Voting against your political opponent and funding your party is common sense, but to trade a Senator's vote for political donations? It's a strong-arm tactic.

Got it. Literally great if a billionaire or shadowy shell company does it, extortion and bribery if average citizens do it. Proceeding to ignore anything else you say.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Demi.

Potentially giving the dems power in the senate before a new supreme court nominee is elected is the problem for the Republicans as a party. I have no doubt the dems would do the exact same thing as pushing their nominee into the supreme court is far more important than some accusations that happened over 30years ago. They didn't completely ignore the allegations but they're not going to sit around and twiddle their thumbs until every last person is interviewed.

I'm glad you're dropping the pretense. What you're saying is essentially that there is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court as long as it judges along the lines of republican interests. You don't understand the the SCOTUS isn't a supermarket with only republican goods in it.

Originally Posted by Demi.

The party with the majority makes the rules.

Welcome to dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Demi.

He was emotional, but if those accusations were untrue I feel he has every right to be. He also apologized for his testimony. I mean there was no proof whatsoever that he sexually assaulted Ford, but that didn't stop people from harassing him about it before evidence was provided.

Oh so it's fine because he apologized for it. This double-standard is just male-apologism. Ford has any reason to be just as angry for she was a victim of attempted assault. Yet if she had held her testimony in the same outraged tone that Kavanaugh did, it would have portrayed her as unstable and potentially unhinged. She had to be the somber, polite and courteous victim to be taken serious. Yet when Kavanaugh lashes out and paints himself as a victim of all things, it is completely justified and perfectly reasonable.

Originally Posted by Demi.

The questioned being answered and the statements made are not what you expect from a job interview. So why call it one? He was under investigation by the FBI and under scrutiny from multiple unsubstantiated claims. It all came crashing onto him so suddenly and if these claims are all false then he has a right to be angry. Being employed in the highest position of the judicial branch doesn't mean you have to be devoid of emotion.

The questions were asked to see whether he was qualified for one of the most influential courts in the country. There is no reason to not think of this as a job interview and considering the weight of the position every reason to apply the most thorough checks, so let's stop this delusion of a candidate not deserving to be judged against a harsher standard. Kavanaugh doesn't have to be devoid of emotion but especially as a judge he has to be able to perform a certain degree of emotional detachment. The fact that he failed that during the hearing casts heavy doubts on his ability to do so as a member of the Supreme Court. This alone should have been a red-light against his confirmation.

Originally Posted by Demi.

How often do you get a supreme court justice that's completely impartial and votes outside of party lines on a regular basis? My only point is that most of the supreme court justices do the same thing Kavanaugh will do. They're yes-men/women to their political party. Trumps second or third pick wouldn't of been any different.

Do they also have drinking and attitude problems and are outraged at the possibility of being considered unqualified for the job they're applying? Maybe the problem isn't where you're trying to point it. Trump chose Kavanaugh from a list of over a dozen candidates and he picked the one with the most skeletons in his closet. One wonders what exactly made him settle on Kavanaugh but then we realize it's because he simply picked the biggest boot-licker of them all.

Originally Posted by Demi.

The dems just wanted to block Trumps nominee until the Senate was no longer in the Republicans favor.

I recall an instance of the same thing just a little while ago but with swapped sides. Funny how you're furious about one but perfectly fine with the other. Hypocritical some might say.

[Ithekro]

How many stupid things do people do in high school or college that they would rather forget about because they were young and stupid?

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

You don't understand the the SCOTUS isn't a supermarket with only republican goods in it.

It is while the republicans control the executive and legislative branch. There is no law stating you need an equal number republican and democrat supreme court Justices.

Welcome to dictatorship.

That's only a small part of what makes a dictatorship. And the republican party still has hurdles.

Oh so it's fine because he apologized for it. This double-standard is just male-apologism. Ford has any reason to be just as angry for she was a victim of attempted assault. Yet if she had held her testimony in the same outraged tone that Kavanaugh did, it would have portrayed her as unstable and potentially unhinged. She had to be the somber, polite and courteous victim to be taken serious. Yet when Kavanaugh lashes out and paints himself as a victim of all things, it is completely justified and perfectly reasonable.

She wasn't the one being accused of a serious crime. If she got angry what would it have changed? Whether the population considers her a victim means nothing; and many will regardless how she acts. The investigation was the only way to find conclusive evidence and it came up way short.

The questions were asked to see whether he was qualified for one of the most influential courts in the country. There is no reason to not think of this as a job interview and considering the weight of the position every reason to apply the most thorough checks, so let's stop this delusion of a candidate not deserving to be judged against a harsher standard. Kavanaugh doesn't have to be devoid of emotion but especially as a judge he has to be able to perform a certain degree of emotional detachment. The fact that he failed that during the hearing casts heavy doubts on his ability to do so as a member of the Supreme Court. This alone should have been a red-light against his confirmation.

To see how calm he would respond to baseless accusations was part of the interview? I honestly don't buy it. They can investigate the accusations without asking him similar questions you would be asked if you were part of a trial. As much power as the SCOTUS has it still seems like you're over-complicating their role. They make decisions based on party and ideological lines. Ideally you would want all 9 judges to be impartial, but they hardly ever are.

Do they also have drinking and attitude problems and are outraged at the possibility of being considered unqualified for the job they're applying? Maybe the problem isn't where you're trying to point it. Trump chose Kavanaugh from a list of over a dozen candidates and he picked the one with the most skeletons in his closet. One wonders what exactly made him settle on Kavanaugh but then we realize it's because he simply picked the biggest boot-licker of them all.

What makes you think those are skeletons? And what makes you think Trump knew anything about them? There seems to be a disconnect between being accused of something and being found guilty of those accusations. As of now, the only dirt they have on Kavanaugh is that he was a heavy drinker back in college and high school. His track record ever since he's been employed has been clean.

I recall an instance of the same thing just a little while ago but with swapped sides. Funny how you're furious about one but perfectly fine with the other. Hypocritical some might say.

I rarely post here, and can't recall what post you're talking about. The point is they're not the good guys; they don't care about Ford. They're just trying to play a game of tug-o-war with the republicans, as they always have done.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

How many stupid things do people do in high school or college that they would rather forget about because they were young and stupid?

Right. People don't stay stagnant all their lives. If that's how far back they have to go to find dirt on Kavanaugh then I consider it quite irrelevant.

[Archon_Wing]

People were dumb to focus on his personal life and accusations that may or may not exist, and not enough on his lack of respect for the 4th amendment and work with the Patriot Act. Although I suppose that doesn't matter given how surveillance is very much loved by those in power.

At the same rate, the Supreme Court is cancer and has always ruled in favor of giving itself more power. I mean what do you expect when people have the power to do exactly that? The focus on the value of the Supreme Court and associated partisanship should have never been a thing and giving them lifelong terms is just subject to abuse No it doesn't mean they don't rule on the side of rights, but that doesn't excuse all the other stuff.

Perhaps FDR was right in trying to pack the court. What we should be all to strive for is to either limit its power or get rid of it altogether. Unless you think a bunch of distant old men should decide your life. Doesn't anyone find that a problem? Could it lead to a dictatorship? Well, that's been the trajectory.

tl;dr Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause

[James Rye]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

How many stupid things do people do in high school or college that they would rather forget about because they were young and stupid?

While I agree with that I would argue that rape is not a "stupid thing" but a crime. And that guy had enough accusation under oath against him that I would have liked to see a full investigation, which usually takes a couple months. Especially the gang rape accusation from that other woman. An investigation that questions neither the accuser nor the accused is just not a real investigation.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Demi.

It is while the republicans control the executive and legislative branch. There is no law stating you need an equal number republican and democrat supreme court Justices.

Because a court that is clearly partisan is such a great thing. The difference between our opinions is that you're perfectly fine with this as long as republicans have the majority whereas I'd make the same complaints even with a democratic majority.

Originally Posted by Demi.

That's only a small part of what makes a dictatorship. And the republican party still has hurdles.

You are omitting a lot of steps in your statement. Democratic steps.

Originally Posted by Demi.

She wasn't the one being accused of a serious crime. If she got angry what would it have changed? Whether the population considers her a victim means nothing; and many will regardless how she acts. The investigation was the only way to find conclusive evidence and it came up way short.

Missing the point entirely. It's that seeing the same behavior for one side as an argument of credibility while using it an argument of unreliability for the other is a disgusting double-standard. As for the investigation, it never had the intention of finding conclusive evidence and it came up short because of limitations put upon it by the people whose candidate would have been investigated. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Originally Posted by Demi.

To see how calm he would respond to baseless accusations was part of the interview? I honestly don't buy it. They can investigate the accusations without asking him similar questions you would be asked if you were part of a trial. As much power as the SCOTUS has it still seems like you're over-complicating their role. They make decisions based on party and ideological lines. Ideally you would want all 9 judges to be impartial, but they hardly ever are.

The accusations being baseless is something that you have decided on your own. Ford's accusations could only be cleared up (at least partially) by a thorough investigation, the very thing republicans have done everything in their power to prevent.

Originally Posted by Demi.

What makes you think those are skeletons? And what makes you think Trump knew anything about them? There seems to be a disconnect between being accused of something and being found guilty of those accusations. As of now, the only dirt they have on Kavanaugh is that he was a heavy drinker back in college and high school. His track record ever since he's been employed has been clean.

Being a potential rapist is quite a big skeleton. And even if we ever get a real investigation and it comes up inconclusive, there is still the entirety of his behavior during the hearing. Since you don't want to understand or chose to ignore it, if you think a person who loses control of himself like that and showing behavior that would be unacceptable even in a court of far lesser importance (and which would certainly not be accepted by Kavanaugh if someone used it against him) is qualified for the Supreme Court, then the fault lies with you.

Originally Posted by Demi.

I rarely post here, and can't recall what post you're talking about. The point is they're not the good guys; they don't care about Ford. They're just trying to play a game of tug-o-war with the republicans, as they always have done.

If I can choose between 48 people who wanted the accusations cleared before confirming someone into the SCOTUS and 50 people who closed both eyes to entrench their power, I don't have to think long about my decision. Neither do you apparently. We both know that even if you don't literally write it that the only reason you think this entire circus is legitimate is because republicans were able to push their candidate through.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Demi.

The dems just wanted to block Trumps nominee until the Senate was no longer in the Republicans favor.

Democratic Senates confirmed Court nominees from Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush. Kavanaugh's appointment was different in two ways.

First, his appointment moved the "median justice" since the "swing" vote, Kennedy, was replaced by someone far to his right. That makes John Roberts the deciding vote in cases that fall along liberal/conservative lines.



Second, Kavanaugh has been a committed, partisan warrior since his days working on the investigation into Clinton under then-Special Counsel Kenneth Starr. Kavanaugh's absurd claims about the Clintons being involved in the events during his confirmation was a red flag. Ending that tirade with the suggestion that he would somehow get even with his opponents exposes him as a partisan, not an "umpire," to use Roberts's term.

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Because a court that is clearly partisan is such a great thing. The difference between our opinions is that you're perfectly fine with this as long as republicans have the majority whereas I'd make the same complaints even with a democratic majority.

Everyone is perfectly happy with the democratic process right until power sways in one direction and then incivility ensues. Some politicians even condone and promote it. He won the majority of the senate that was elected by the people. Fairness is what I care about more than anything else, not party lines.

Missing the point entirely. It's that seeing the same behavior for one side as an argument of credibility while using it an argument of unreliability for the other is a disgusting double-standard. As for the investigation, it never had the intention of finding conclusive evidence and it came up short because of limitations put upon it by the people whose candidate would have been investigated. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Fords demeanor means little to me. That's not why I question her credibility. It was her vague memory of events that she altered on multiple occasions. The investigation could not support a single one of Fords claims. Had Fords memory been accurate, she would have multiple witnesses that could corroborate the existence of Kavanaugh at the party, or at the very least the existence of the party. Instead, she has none.

The accusations being baseless is something that you have decided on your own. Ford's accusations could only be cleared up (at least partially) by a thorough investigation, the very thing republicans have done everything in their power to prevent.

So if I accuse you of a crime without evidence do we need a complete 2-month investigation before you're allowed to call it baseless? It's unsupported by evidence and that makes it baseless.

Being a potential rapist is quite a big skeleton. And even if we ever get a real investigation and it comes up inconclusive, there is still the entirety of his behavior during the hearing. Since you don't want to understand or chose to ignore it, if you think a person who loses control of himself like that and showing behavior that would be unacceptable even in a court of far lesser importance (and which would certainly not be accepted by Kavanaugh if someone used it against him) is qualified for the Supreme Court, then the fault lies with you.

I'm sure you know the meaning of that idiom. It's only a skeleton if it were true. I won't say the likelihood is zero, but it's more likely no skeleton at all. It's a stretch to say he lost control. I'm more inclined to believe his emotional state was a result of being falsely accused. Many people will now think of him as a sexual predator regardless of the result of the investigation. That's what he was angry about. He may of cleared his name, but the negative perception many people now have of him will not change.

If I can choose between 48 people who wanted the accusations cleared before confirming someone into the SCOTUS and 50 people who closed both eyes to entrench their power, I don't have to think long about my decision. Neither do you apparently. We both know that even if you don't literally write it that the only reason you think this entire circus is legitimate is because republicans were able to push their candidate through.

The accusations cleared wouldn't have prevented them from voting NO for Kavanaugh because that's not what they cared about. They cared about preventing Trump from picking two republican nominees in his first two years of office. I'm not nearly as partisan as you think I am, nor do I care about politics as much as you think I do. This is my perspective based on the evidence provided and the likelihood such claims are true. American politics are a clown fiesta and not a single politician has changed my life in any meaningful way.|

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Democratic Senates confirmed Court nominees from Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush. Kavanaugh's appointment was different in two ways.

I know it is more complex then what I initially said. It's a shift in power that they fear most. We we're lucky to have a stalemate(slightly left) in terms of power within SCOTUS for many years so the swing vote was often the deciding factor. Now that the swing vote was replaced with a conservative, it's not hard to see where the supreme court is heading. However, the facts till remains that it was never about Ford; it was about Trumps intention to stack SCOTUS in the conservatives favor. The dems were stupid to focus on some allegation that happened over 30 years ago that could never be proven. As Archon_wing mentioned earlier, they should have focused on his policy and the negative repercussions it could have.