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

bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13194

Posted
Posted

 

21 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal, so i'm cool with a return to the Lochner era as long as the court prohibits Southern bigots from preventing the gays to marry.  A gilded age but with more rainbow flags is my preferred America.  

Ladies and gentlemen... the #Resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27653

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

actually, i kind of am. i would prefer the court to move in a conservative manner, with obvious moves like gay marriage progressing society. nobody really wants a packed court in any particular ideology, which is why what the republicans are doing with kavanaugh is stupid and dangerous. because, as ghost points out, the bill comes due. they should've jettisoned this guy and picked another. but they won't. 

which really makes one wonder...why?

I really do think this has to do with trump's insistence on never admitting that he was wrong. It's covered extensively in "Fear" and we saw it first-hand after the NK summit. In trump's mind, to admit that you were wrong or to take a step back is to show weakness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Just like when Bill Clinton didn't inhale. 

The most amazing thing about all of this is that the guy who made his bones on tearing down Bill Clinton....is proving to be Bill Clinton.    Only he's not nearing the end of his last presidential term, but is seeking to begin a lifetime job on the Supreme Court. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

A woman who signed the 65-woman letter supporting Kavanagh finds out she was part of a big high school yearbook joke in which Kavanaugh and a bunch of others bragged about her as a conquest:  https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/new-york-times-kavanaugh-renate-high-school-yearbook/index.html

Quote
Renate Schroeder Dolphin joined 64 other women this month who signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee saying they knew the Supreme Court nominee during their high school years and that "he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect."
However, Kavanaugh included "Renate Alumnius" as an entry in his high school yearbook page, and two of Kavanaugh's classmates told the Times the mentions of "Renate" were part of the high school football players' unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests.

So this makes her the Angry Dolphin?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman 3911

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mack Tripper said:


Between the calendar bullshit, the douchey (at best) yearbook entries, and the overall rapeyness, it’s like Trump nominated Patrick Bateman to the Supreme Court. His next alibi will be that he couldn’t have sexually assaulted someone because he was returning some video tapes.

Uhm..... I have not received a call regarding my pending nomination.....

But...

tumblr_mqa2bsbUNT1rd11tco1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26444

Posted
Posted
I'll just tell you, I didn't have a problem with the Republican position on Garland.  It was Scalia's seat, and Garland is to the left of center.  I happen to like balance on the Court, and putting Garland on the Court would have created a solid 5-4 liberal majority. At the same time, I was realistic about the consequences.  I told several people--and may have posted on this board's predecessor--"the bill for this shit's going to come due one day."   And for the record, I don't think that day has yet arrived.  Kavanaugh would be opposed irrespective of what happened to Garland.  For one thing, he's outside the mainstream of legal thought on the scope of executive power.  For another thing, he's more of a political hack than he is a legal scholar.  And for another thing, apparently he's an attempted rapist.  Add it all up, and the Democrats were always going to oppose this nomination.

But regardless of what ends up happening with this nomination, this isn't the end.  There's a bill that's going to come due one day.

 

 

I’d like to see judges appointed by the president and confirmed by wide, filibuster proof majorities with the advice and consent of the senate. When the Senate chooses not to consent, it should be for character deficiencies or a lack of fitness and quality, not philosophy and certainly not party. 

That view may seem naive now, but that’s the norm that our system at least aspired to until very recently with few exceptions.

 

The Garland fiasco flies in the face of that norm. Party control was the overarching, explicit objective and your idea about maintaining the existing “balance”, whatever that is supposed to mean, isn’t better.

 

Either way, though- we wind up in the same place. Kavanaugh simplify isn’t fit or qualified for the job, irrespective of the accusations of sexual assault or other shitty behavior towards women. His character deficiencies may yet be proven or not, but even if they aren’t, he’s not the caliber of judge that belongs on our highest court at this point in his career.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9818

Posted
Posted

I love the assertion that we know BK is clean because he passed background checks in the past.  If powerful people want you to pass, and there is no public attention, you will pass the background check. Exhibit A-  Kush has top secret clearance.

When “the enemy of the people” do their job and shine light on the underbelly, then it becomes a bit harder for the power brokers to do their thing unimpeded.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11664

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

I love the assertion that we know BK is clean because he passed background checks in the past.  If powerful people want you to pass, and there is no public attention, you will pass the background check. Exhibit A-  Kush has top secret clearance.

When “the enemy of the people” do their job and shine light on the underbelly, then it becomes a bit harder for the power brokers to do their thing unimpeded.  

Avennati's new accuser worked at the US Mint so you know she is a straight shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’d like to see judges appointed by the president and confirmed by wide, filibuster proof majorities with the advice and consent of the senate. When the Senate chooses not to consent, it should be for character deficiencies or a lack of fitness and quality, not philosophy and certainly not party. 

 

I'd base the advise and consent decision on how they would rule -- will they follow precedent, will  they uphold Roe v. Wade, are they against the death penalty, etc.

I'm not advising on whether they are going to be good den mothers.  I'm advising on whether they will follow what I feel is the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, troph said:

But Bill Clinton...

Uh.... he was impeached. Let’s just cut to the chase and impeach Kavanaugh and be done with it. Fair and square. Tit for tat.

BUT BUT BUT he had consensual (oral) sex with a 22 year old woman!  And lied about it!  That's totally different than attempting nonconsensual sex with a 16 year old girl!  Apples and oranges!!!

Wait . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16084

Posted
Posted

"But now that serious accusations have arisen about his conduct in his teenage years, I believe that these accusations deserve the best and most professional investigation possible - even if that means a brief additional delay on the ultimate vote on Judge Kavanaugh, and even if that investigatory delay imperils his confirmation," he added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17669

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If the FBI had been called into the investigate, they would most likely already be completed with the investigation and we could get on with the main act of this circus. 

Yeah, but then the GOP would appear weak.  Which is more important than appearing competent these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28767

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

BUT BUT BUT he had consensual (oral) sex with a 22 year old woman!  And lied about it!  That's totally different than attempting nonconsensual sex with a 16 year old girl!  Apples and oranges!!!

Wait . . .

Not to continue to derail but I believe Lewinsky has moved away from the claim that it was consensual and is now leaning towards it being exploitive.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
Just now, F250 said:

Not to continue to derail but I believe Lewinsky has moved away from the claim that it was consensual and is now leaning towards it being exploitive.

 

well, he was the president of the united fucking states, and she was employed by the white house as an intern. that's absolutely exploitative, and that's okay to say now. back then, things were a bit different. my mom was till getting sexually harassed at her office by her boss. there were different attitudes about things then, and i think we've come a long way in recognizing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14332

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

BUT BUT BUT he had consensual (oral) sex with a 22 year old woman!  And lied about it!  That's totally different than attempting nonconsensual sex with a 16 year old girl!  Apples and oranges!!!

Wait . . .

You guys really shouldn't use Bill Clinton to make your point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, F250 said:

Not to continue to derail but I believe Lewinsky has moved away from the claim that it was consensual and is now leaning towards it being exploitive.

 

I don't recall seeing her say it wasn't consensual.  I do know she has recently said that she now views it as exploitative.  Whether that blurs the line in terms of consensual behavior at the time, I don't really know.  That seems to be a tough call -- can "yes" mean "no"?

I don't want to trivialize her experience.  It pretty clearly points to sexual harassment.  What it doesn't necessarily point to is sexual assault, at least as I understand the terms.

My overarching point was re: the hypocrisy of the right wing with regards to the different way they want to treat Clinton and Kavanaugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14332

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I don't recall seeing her say it wasn't consensual.  I do know she has recently said that she now views it as exploitative.  Whether that blurs the line in terms of consensual behavior at the time, I don't really know.  That seems to be a tough call -- can "yes" mean "no"?

I don't want to trivialize her experience.  It pretty clearly points to sexual harassment.  What it doesn't necessarily point to is sexual assault, at least as I understand the terms.

My overarching point was re: the hypocrisy of the right wing with regards to the different way they want to treat Clinton and Kavanaugh.

Seriously.  Just stop.  You have made much better points in other posts.  Just move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28767

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

well, he was the president of the united fucking states, and she was employed by the white house as an intern. that's absolutely exploitative, and that's okay to say now. back then, things were a bit different. my mom was till getting sexually harassed at her office by her boss. there were different attitudes about things then, and i think we've come a long way in recognizing that.

I agree, I think even back then we knew it to be wrong but most people would just say, "that guy is taking advantage of her." I think it's a good thing we now see it as something worse because it is.

Also, we will need to see pics of your mom from the early 90's to provide some context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

well, he was the president of the united fucking states, and she was employed by the white house as an intern. that's absolutely exploitative, and that's okay to say now. back then, things were a bit different. my mom was till getting sexually harassed at her office by her boss. there were different attitudes about things then, and i think we've come a long way in recognizing that.

No, it wasn't cool then, don't try to make that comparison.  It for damn sure wasn't cool for a sitting president to have his 20something intern suck his dick. People were still engaging in it, but the tide was already turning on that kind of behavior.  And its never been cool with adults who just wouldn't do that shit to someone.

  • Like 2
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...