Anders wrote:Politically I disagree with Kavanaugh on most key issues. Nevertheless, I worry about how a claim that he did something decades ago, as a 17 year old, suddenly pops up for the first time, as he is trying to get a position in The Supreme Court. It seems politically motivated, and therefore rings false in my ears.
Read up on why the allegations are coming up now, Anders.
One thing that baffles me: why would republicans even want to place someone already perfectly tee’d up for an investigation on the court, right before the Democrats take over the investigative branch? If ensuring that a “right to life” judge is permanently in place is your ambition, this might actually be the least effective way to do it. Every other name on that list is less risky than Kavanaugh will continue to be.
McParadigm wrote:One thing that baffles me: why would republicans even want to place someone already perfectly tee’d up for an investigation on the court, right before the Democrats take over the investigative branch? If ensuring that a “right to life” judge is permanently in place is your ambition, this might actually be the least effective way to do it. Every other name on that list is less risky than Kavanaugh will continue to be.
is there any recourse for dems after the fact? could they investigate and impeach BK after November?
There’s a path, but I’m sure right now most people would call it extremely unlikely or unrealistic. Given the state of the last few years, I would say that predicting how such an investigation will go seems as unwise as it was to make assumptions about the Mueller probe’s potential, before it had started.
The thing is, such an investigation would not only reach into all these assault claims, but also into his finances and into the heap of documents that Republicans found reason enough to keep out of this process. The man’s biggest stumbling point yesterday was his need to avoid supporting the opening of an FBI probe. It’s hard to know what would come of it, but it’s certainly fallacitic on their part (and anybody’s) to assume no risk.
I think an attempt to investigate and impeach Kavanaugh is very possible, much more so than even 24 hours ago. I think a lot more of this is dependent on what happens in 2020, as to whether the Democrats win the White House and run up the numbers on a Senate map that is far more in their favor than it is this year. It does feel on the right that there is a bit of willful ignorance about the anger people are feeling, similar to Democrats in 2010. The Dems didn't get it then, and Republicans don't seem to be getting it now.
I didn't watch much of yesterday's hearing/coverage but I'm not really sure how someone on the fence could walk away from those hearings thinking "yes, absolutely yes".
Monkey_Driven wrote:I didn't watch much of yesterday's hearing/coverage but I'm not really sure how someone on the fence could walk away from those hearings thinking "yes, absolutely yes".
"I have no basis for this claim I'm about to make, but I'm going to make it anyway."
I do still maintain that a lot of the celebrating yesterday was less about the nominee, and more about how well they felt they performed. It was a midterms performance, all about firing up the base. Lots of grandstanding, Graham shouting, etc. They believe that they have turned protecting Kavanaugh into a major midterms issue, and that this will electrify the base.
It won’t help the House, but they probably believe that a number of Senate races just became more winnable (ie more Texans will feel motivated to vote for Cruz), big donors have been pleased, and that senate Republicans have a heftier share of Trump’s power hold over the crazies. I am torn between thinking they are underestimating the reaction outside the base, and thinking that they’ve already given up on everyone else and just don’t think they can fix that.
It’s only the part about “ok, but then Democrats take the House and start investigations...what do you think happens next?” that I just can’t make sense of.
The thing I have trouble understanding is wouldn't Republicans be more motivated to vote if the SC seat seemed in danger, that the Dems may take the Senate and refuse to fill the seat like Garland? This would seem to remove those stakes.
simple schoolboy wrote:Are non-falsifiable claims the new standard for removing candidates for consideration? That's a pretty sweet new standard, for everyone involved.
it's not just about whether he attempted rape
it's about the fact that he has lied to the senate about his background at this point on a number of occasions (e.g. actions in the Bush White House, being a choir boy vs. being a bad drunk)
that's a disqualifying event for someone who's job is 'justice'
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Monkey_Driven wrote:I didn't watch much of yesterday's hearing/coverage but I'm not really sure how someone on the fence could walk away from those hearings thinking "yes, absolutely yes".
"I have no basis for this claim I'm about to make, but I'm going to make it anyway."
It was long ago read it in the movements of interstellar bodies, by those seeking such universal truths as can only be found when living by the one true celestial calendar and using both stars and nonsense to seek out those qualities that make us all unique.
McParadigm wrote:I do still maintain that a lot of the celebrating yesterday was less about the nominee, and more about how well they felt they performed.
Yeah, this is pretty much me (though I was entirely indifferent about the performances of either).
Kavanaugh wasn't especially articulate in his defense, and I'm not sure how bright he is. His legal chops leave me...wanting. In a world where hysterics compel more than force of reason, it seems to have been lost that the whole point of these kinds of hearings is to vet public officials. Accusations aside, he doesn't seem very impressive.
Monkey_Driven wrote:I didn't watch much of yesterday's hearing/coverage but I'm not really sure how someone on the fence could walk away from those hearings thinking "yes, absolutely yes".
"I have no basis for this claim I'm about to make, but I'm going to make it anyway."
I read about it, just didn't watch it. Nothing seemed conclusive at all.
Anders wrote:Politically I disagree with Kavanaugh on most key issues. Nevertheless, I worry about how a claim that he did something decades ago, as a 17 year old, suddenly pops up for the first time, as he is trying to get a position in The Supreme Court. It seems politically motivated, and therefore rings false in my ears.
Nothing against you personally but this has been brought up before and it's been discussed. It's not being brought up all of a sudden, she's talked about it previously to many people. She's doing it now because he's about to be put on the most important court in the land and she doesn't feel he's 'right' for the position. It's personal for her, not political.
Anders wrote:Politically I disagree with Kavanaugh on most key issues. Nevertheless, I worry about how a claim that he did something decades ago, as a 17 year old, suddenly pops up for the first time, as he is trying to get a position in The Supreme Court. It seems politically motivated, and therefore rings false in my ears.
Nothing against you personally but this has been brought up before and it's been discussed. It's not being brought up all of a sudden, she's talked about it previously to many people. She's doing it now because he's about to be put on the most important court in the land and she doesn't feel he's 'right' for the position. It's personal for her, not political.
This exchange really highlights how effectively Republicans have:
1. Removed any talk of temperament from this.
2. Turned it into a conversation about one accusation, and one accusation only.
3. Kept Kavanaugh’s constant lazy lies about little but provable details from coloring people’s perceptions of his worthiness to sit on the Supreme Court, or to be believed in anything else he says.
4. Normalized the logic that a decision not only should be made without an investigation, but must be made and made right now.
Monkey_Driven wrote:I didn't watch much of yesterday's hearing/coverage but I'm not really sure how someone on the fence could walk away from those hearings thinking "yes, absolutely yes".
"I have no basis for this claim I'm about to make, but I'm going to make it anyway."
It was long ago read it in the movements of interstellar bodies, by those seeking such universal truths as can only be found when living by the one true celestial calendar and using both stars and nonsense to seek out those qualities that make us all unique.
If I'm picking up what you're laying down here, the joke is most definitely not on me.
