Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29878

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Correction:  A conservative is willing to hide the record and ignore possible perjury to have a conservative seated.

 

Not a conservative, this conservative. It's not like Trump is obliged to nominate a communist if Kavanaugh is rejected. This guy must have taken a secret oath to protect the GOPs from criminal charges in the most active way possible.This slimeball is a fucking mole not a justice.

There are surely plenty of honorable conservative judges out there worthy of nomination, but they want this POS because they're scared shitless for their own future not the future of American conservatism.  This is shameless and likely criminal partisanship.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15530

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

Not a conservative, this conservative. It's not like Trump is obliged to nominate a communist if Kavanaugh is rejected. This guy must have taken a secret oath to protect the GOPs from criminal charges in the most active way possible.This slimeball is a fucking mole not a justice.

There are surely plenty of honorable conservative judges out there worthy of nomination, but they want this POS because they're scared shitless for their own future not the future of American conservatism.  This is shameless and likely criminal partisanship.

 

That's the thing--there's something special about this guy, else they would've pulled him down long ago.  Poor Doug Ginsburg got yanked because he once smoked weed.  Kavanaugh got caught lying to Congress (repeatedly), but there's no indication they're pulling him down.

It's all very sketchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Not a conservative, this conservative. It's not like Trump is obliged to nominate a communist if Kavanaugh is rejected. This guy must have taken a secret oath to protect the GOPs from criminal charges in the most active way possible.This slimeball is a fucking mole not a justice.

There are surely plenty of honorable conservative judges out there worthy of nomination, but they want this POS because they're scared shitless for their own future not the future of American conservatism.  This is shameless and likely criminal partisanship.

 

Let's say that's true.  What is he planning on doing about the other 8 justices when it comes time to protecting the GOP from criminal charges?  I mean maybe he gets Thomas on board, so they lose a 7-2 decision.

The only thing special is that the GOP has a chance at losing the Senate in November.  They have time to confirm this guy.  They don't have time to have his nomination pulled, have some other guy nominated, and go through the whole vetting and confirmation process.  Cuz nobody is getting through if they lose the election, not even if they try to do it the lame duck period.

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29878

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Let's say that's true.  What is he planning on doing about the other 8 justices when it comes time to protecting the GOP from criminal charges?  I mean maybe he gets Thomas on board, so they lose a 7-2 decision.

Whatever he can do, he will. Even if he loses every battle, he's their man on the bench.

I'm not an attorney, but I don't need to be able to predict what the Supreme Court votes will be to deduce that Kavanaugh is not merely a conservative judge who may allow guns and protect fetuses. 

He's a lightly coated poison pill. The GOPs nodding and voting for him are just as poisonous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23445

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That's the thing--there's something special about this guy, else they would've pulled him down long ago.  Poor Doug Ginsburg got yanked because he once smoked weed.  Kavanaugh got caught lying to Congress (repeatedly), but there's no indication they're pulling him down.

It's all very sketchy.

They don't have enough time to run somebody else up before new congress. I think it's just timing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29878

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

They don't have enough time to run somebody else up before new congress. I think it's just timing. 

Again, Trump does the nominating. He could nominate another conservative judge with a good record and no secrets whom the Dems would likely confirm. Or maybe they hold out for a moderate judge at best, but you know how limp the Dems are. If Trump nominates a female or person of color, the Dems will have to go along because they are weak.

[To be clear, the weakness refers to the Dems trembling at the thought of losing a black or female vote. See Clarence Thomas. In fact, this scandal from the past reminds me of what a weak move it was to drag Anita Hill into Congress because the Dems were too weak to just vote against Thomas on principle.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32379

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Message Board User said:

So am I the only one who thinks it’s awfully suspicious that Feinstein had this info in July and is only coming forward now?

Timing.

 

By rolling it out now, if the info is valid and throws this nomination aside, the GOP doesn't have time to get a new nominee, vetting, etc before mid-terms.

 

Had she done it in July, they could have had someone in the bullpen ready to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104934

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Message Board User said:

So am I the only one who thinks it’s awfully suspicious that Feinstein had this info in July and is only coming forward now?

Nope.

I suspect it's either a whole lotta nuthin', or it's just something calculated to further poison the well before the mid-terms (release information showing the Senate happily confirms someone who, say, allegedly raped a woman, and you inspire even more female turnout for Dems in the mid-terms).  Political cynicism tells me the answer is probably "both."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4089

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

So am I the only one who thinks it’s awfully suspicious that Feinstein had this info in July and is only coming forward now?

about as suspicious as I might feel about  the Senate refusing to hold a confirmation hearing on a Supreme Court Nominee for 8 months. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29324

Posted
Posted
Just now, Message Board User said:

True.  But this episode demonstrates that both sides engage in ends-justify-the-means behavior, which I personally find abhorrent.  

When one side flips the chess board over, lights it on fire, and starts punching the other player in the face, what exactly is the acceptable response by the other player?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Nope.

I suspect it's either a whole lotta nuthin', or it's just something calculated to further poison the well before the mid-terms (release information showing the Senate happily confirms someone who, say, allegedly raped a woman, and you inspire even more female turnout for Dems in the mid-terms).  Political cynicism tells me the answer is probably "both."

Or it needed to be vetted.  I suspect it would have been revealed during the hearings if the intent was to do a bunch of damage to his nomination.  But you could be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4089

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

True.  But this episode demonstrates that both sides engage in ends-justify-the-means behavior, which I personally find abhorrent.  

here is a picture demonstrating the both sides argument.

Image result for knife to a gun fight

Edited by yoladu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11290

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Hush money is high school.  Damn, I was doing it all wrong. 

Let me walk you through it.  Kavanaugh gets a girl pregnant in HS (who may or may not be underage) and pressures her to have an abortion.  

Life goes on...

Fast forward to 2006, and Kavanaugh is trying to get on the DC circuit, and the old flame comes back into the picture.  He pays her to go away.

Now that he's a supreme court nominee, the woman feels compelled to say something, but wants to remain anonymous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4089

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Let me walk you through it.  Kavanaugh gets a girl pregnant in HS (who may or may not be underage) and pressures her to have an abortion.  

Life goes on...

Fast forward to 2006, and Kavanaugh is trying to get on the DC circuit, and the old flame comes back into the picture.  He pays her to go away.

Now that he's a supreme court nominee, the woman feels compelled to say something, but wants to remain anonymous.

So he is pro-choice. Dems confirm? :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15530

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

True.  But this episode demonstrates that both sides engage in ends-justify-the-means behavior, which I personally find abhorrent.  

I'm sorry, but where in the rule book do you say that you have to publicize information as soon as you get it?

If Feinstein took two months to investigate the information to determine its reliability, I don't think that would be unreasonable.

But if she just held on to it to do the maximum amount of damage, how is that some sort of malfeasance?  It's not her job to help the party opposite confirm conservative Supreme Court justices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Thanks.   When did Feinstein refer the matter to the FBI — in July or recently?   And is Feinstein necessarily the source of the leak today? 

Quote

WASHINGTON — The senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee referred information involving Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, to federal investigators on Thursday, but the senator declined to make public what the matter involved.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-dianne-feinstein.html

Edited by retread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32379

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, yoladu said:

here is a picture demonstrating the both sides argument.

Image result for knife to a gun fight

(Brief thread-jack)

Great ad-libbed scene.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/harrison-ford-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-swordsman-scene-was-my-idea/

Quote

The famous “Raiders of the Lost Ark” scene in which Indiana Jones shoots the Cairo swordsman instead of dueling him was Harrison Ford’s idea, the actor and surprise guest told the audience during the film’s 30th anniversary screening.

During the event’s Q&A with Steven Spielberg, hosted by Hero Complex’s Geoff Boucher at L.A. Live Monday night, the director began recounting how the scene, originally written to be an action sequence requiring three days of shooting, was truncated.

Quote

“I had chosen to eat native food, unlike Steven who went to Tunisia with a steamer trunk full of SpaghettiOs, and I had suffered mightily for that,” Ford said. “I was no longer capable of staying out of my trailer for more than it took to expose a role of film, which was 10 minutes, and then I would have to flee back there for sanitary facilities.”

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27579

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Seems if referral of Kav to feds just happened, he was probably caught in a lie to Senators during confirmation that can be proven by this woman.  

Either that, or he may have lied to the FBI about misconduct during the FBI vetting. Which would definitely make him fit right in with the trump party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23445

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Let me walk you through it.  Kavanaugh gets a girl pregnant in HS (who may or may not be underage) and pressures her to have an abortion.  

Life goes on...

Fast forward to 2006, and Kavanaugh is trying to get on the DC circuit, and the old flame comes back into the picture.  He pays her to go away.

Now that he's a supreme court nominee, the woman feels compelled to say something, but wants to remain anonymous.

So you're going with high school sweetie had an abortion, tried to black mail him, was paid hush money 20 or 30 some odd years later. And then wrote a letter to Feinstein about it.  Yeah, gonna short that one if you want some action. The most likely scenario imo is that Feinstein figured out a play to try to blow up the confirmation, and made the move. The letter will end up going nowhere, but it may very well serve its purpose. If there is any substance to the accusations, whatever they are, I think its probably more likely related to some inappropriate sexual advances or something similar in high school. Will to interesting to watch play out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4089

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I think the word you were looking for is "hypocrite".  😉

one would wonder without access to a safe abortion, how his life might have been forever altered? I would say the odds would be against a 17 year old, supporting and raising a baby/child while managing to graduate High School with honors, then going to Yale, then Yale Law School.

he wouldn't want others to have the same opportunities?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33857

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, yoladu said:

one would wonder without access to a safe abortion, how his life might have been forever altered? I would say the odds would be against a 17 year old, supporting and raising a baby/child while managing to graduate High School with honors, then going to Yale, then Yale Law School.

he wouldn't want others to have the same opportunities?

if they're white, sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...