Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

wildcat09

wildcat09 29338

Posted
Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

It would be super awkward if Kavanaugh got withdrawn and they nominate ACB or Hardiman and no one came forward with accusations. 

Eh, Incredulity and Tahoe would just pretend that there's some other reason that the Dems suddenly didn't care as much about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Amobie said:

I have a friend that went to UT and was a pediatric oncologist.  About 12 years ago he was accused by his brother in law of molesting his kids during a messy divorce.  He didn't get to see his kids without being under observation for around 3 years and only for about 1-2 hour blocks per week.   Even after being cleared, he was only able to see his kids under observation for an additional year after that.  During that time, he lost his job and could no longer work with children because the hospital didn't want to take that risk.  It took 8 years for him to get joint custody.

12 years since the start of that disaster, his former brother in law has not faced any charges for making those false accusations.

Out of curiosity, what did his kids have to say about it?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32839

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The urgency to delay or defeat Kavanaugh was greater than versus Gorsuch because there are no options after committee.  There was no guarantee the R's would invoke the Nuclear Option with Gorsuch.  They will pay that bill downline, just as the D's will pay the bill for their tactics in this case.

No, it was greater than with Gorsuch because Kennedy was the swing vote, as MM pointed out.

Regardless, the logic that everyone will face accusers because they're all political hatchet jobs is exactly why you thought that Kavanaugh would face a stream of allegations this week during the investigation. That didn't happen, and the likeliest explanation for why it didn't happen is the same for why Gorsuch didn't face any.

Edited by Huckleberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MixtyMotions

MixtyMotions 102

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

 

Your first quoted post says that all nominees will have this happen. Your second quoted post lays out the reasoning for a nominee not to face such accusations, logic which may apply to nominations in the future. Which is it? Will all nominees face this or will there be certain circumstances that will prevent some from facing this?

All nominees will face it unless there are two close together and there is a political decision to use all firepower on one.  The merits of the nominee will not be a factor.  The politics of power will decide all.

Now I guess I can imagine a fairly far-fetched scenario where there is a compromise candidate rather than leave the Court at 4-4 for four years.  But that would require more political courage from both the President and the opposition party controlling the Senate than I can foresee.  So it's just imaginary.

All I see is war.  With the weaker player fighting ugly. 

It began with Bork.  Then we had Thomas.  But we've had some time-outs.  (The GOP played nice with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.  The Dems played nice with Roberts.)  The time-outs are gone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18837

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The urgency to delay or defeat Kavanaugh was greater than versus Gorsuch because there are no options after committee.  There was no guarantee the R's would invoke the Nuclear Option with Gorsuch.  They will pay that bill downline, just as the D's will pay the bill for their tactics in this case.

Again, it's not the Democrats blocking this nomination. They have no power whatsoever to do so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11643

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Lagunamadre said:

Apparently those don't work anymore, according to my republican friends.  

In his case his defense attorney had him take the test in another county so it would be harder to find by the prosecutor should he have failed.  Don't know if it was admissible, or ??? but I do remember that detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

So Dems sat on allegations of sexual assault against Gorsuch (from people who knew Gorsuch and willing to make those allegations under threat of perjury) because the urgency to defeat Gorsuch's nomination wasn't as great as the urgency to defeat Brett's?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

This Kavanaugh fiasco is turning out to be a good trial run for just how effective the GOP influence machine is.

 You can see the zone being flooded with conspiracies, blame the Democrats, putting the victim on trial, and for good measure, let's get the FBI involved.  All for a confirmation process for a Supreme Court Justice nominee's past black out drunk behavior and possible sexual assault. 

In any other administration Kavanaugh would have been withdrawn weeks ago.

But the tribe is so well trained to defend their guy at all cost, regardless if wrongdoing is found. 

Never mind that the alternative is just finding someone else. 

For a Supreme Court Justice. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29338

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Eh, Incredulity and Tahoe would just pretend that there's some other reason that the Dems suddenly didn't care as much about them.

 

Just now, MixtyMotions said:

All nominees will face it unless there are two close together and there is a political decision to use all firepower on one.  The merits of the nominee will not be a factor.  The politics of power will decide all.

Now I guess I can imagine a fairly far-fetched scenario where there is a compromise candidate rather than leave the Court at 4-4 for four years.  But that would require more political courage from both the President and the opposition party controlling the Senate than I can foresee.  So it's just imaginary.

All I see is war.  With the weaker player fighting ugly. 

It began with Bork.  Then we had Thomas.  But we've had some time-outs.  (The GOP played nice with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.  The Dems played nice with Roberts.)  The time-outs are gone.  

Well that didn't take long.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29338

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

All nominees will face it unless there are two close together and there is a political decision to use all firepower on one.  The merits of the nominee will not be a factor.  The politics of power will decide all.

Now I guess I can imagine a fairly far-fetched scenario where there is a compromise candidate rather than leave the Court at 4-4 for four years.  But that would require more political courage from both the President and the opposition party controlling the Senate than I can foresee.  So it's just imaginary.

All I see is war.  With the weaker player fighting ugly. 

It began with Bork.  Then we had Thomas.  But we've had some time-outs.  (The GOP played nice with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.  The Dems played nice with Roberts.)  The time-outs are gone.  

The GOP engineered an extremely racist smear campaign against Sotomayor you fucking liar.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
texasstrong12

texasstrong12 4668

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This Kavanaugh fiasco is turning out to be a good trial run for just how effective the GOP influence machine is.

 You can see the zone being flooded with conspiracies, blame the Democrats, putting the victim on trial, and for good measure, let's get the FBI involved.  All for a confirmation process for a Supreme Court Justice nominee's past black out drunk behavior and possible sexual assault. 

In any other administration Kavanaugh would have been withdrawn weeks ago.

But the tribe is so well trained to defend their guy as all cost, regardless if wrongdoing is found. 

Never mind that the alternative is just finding someone else. 

For a Supreme Court Justice. 

This is a good summary of the entire process. 

Edited by texasstrong12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45877

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

So Dems sat on allegations of sexual assault against Gorsuch (from people who knew Gorsuch and willing to make those allegations under threat of perjury) because the urgency to defeat Gorsuch's nomination wasn't as great as the urgency to defeat Brett's?  

You left out ". . . given the Dem's crystal ball which foretold the resignation of Kennedy?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chet Steadman

Chet Steadman 940

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I know 2 men who were falsely accused.

One died out shortly after his intitial contact from police,  when the woman recanted the story.

 

The other made it all the way to charges.  He "passed" a polygraph which caused the accuser to recant.

Second one was pretty sure he was going to do time as it was based on a consensual sex situation that she turned into a rape accusation. 

So there was a rape kit against him.

 

Both were hell hath no fury situations.

I hope both the individuals who wrongly accused your friend did serious time.  

But  somehow I doubt they did.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11643

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Chet Steadman said:

I hope both the individuals who wrongly accused your friend did serious time.  

But  somehow I doubt they did.  

They did not.  And in large part I can understand why.  Just another thing that makes situations like that extremely shitty.

It was 2 different people.  One is a work acquaintance.  The other was a pretty good friend in my youth.

Edited by Incredulity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MixtyMotions

MixtyMotions 102

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

...with the knowledge that it would lead to the GOP eliminating the filibuster and voting for him. You can't pretend that the Democratic party has some super-organized conspiracy with thousands of false allegations in the can for anyone but that they were too stupid to realize they'd need some for Gorsuch once the GOP eliminated the filibuster.

Correction, you can pretend exactly that, just not with any shred of intellectual honesty.

They had 'em. But they wisely chose not to use them.  Using them would not have stopped the nomination, and would have backfired.

There are some smart Dems who think the use of them here was unwise - that it will cost Senate seats and not stop the nomination.  We won't know for a few months whether the tactic was wise or not.

In any case, their base left them no real choice.  The base was not ready to accept a decision not to play ugly, and go for control of the Senate.

 

As a member of the "somewhat conservative" wing of the GOP I  am very familiar with the phenomenon of politicians being forced into the stupid, ugly choice instead of the smart choice.  The extremists wield lots of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AtticusFinch

AtticusFinch 155

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This Kavanaugh fiasco is turning out to be a good trial run for just how effective the GOP influence machine is.

 You can see the zone being flooded with conspiracies, blame the Democrats, putting the victim on trial, and for good measure, let's get the FBI involved.  All for a confirmation process for a Supreme Court Justice nominee's past black out drunk behavior and possible sexual assault. 

In any other administration Kavanaugh would have been withdrawn weeks ago.

But the tribe is so well trained to defend their guy at all cost, regardless if wrongdoing is found. 

Never mind that the alternative is just finding someone else. 

For a Supreme Court Justice. 

I dont know how this "he blacked out" story got started.  Where is the evidence he blacked out?  How do you black out drinking beer?  Unless you bong an 18 pack, I dont think its possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89618

Posted
Posted

“Mr. AtomHeartBevo, it says here in your yearbook that you may or may not have made the beast with two backs with your English teacher.  Can you explain this?”

”Well Senator, it was honestly a juvenile joke. My English teacher had given us an easy assignment to read a Shakespeare work, and I joked that if this was a French literature class, she would have assigned us to read François Rabelais’s Gargantua and Pantagruel, which is some novel from the 1530s. I don’t remember the context, but I remember there was some kind of beast in Gargantua and Pantagruel that had two backs.  I don’t recall any specific details or assigning it to a specific act or deed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29338

Posted
Posted
Just now, MixtyMotions said:

They had 'em. But they wisely chose not to use them.  Using them would not have stopped the nomination, and would have backfired.

There are some smart Dems who think the use of them here was unwise - that it will cost Senate seats and not stop the nomination.  We won't know for a few months whether the tactic was wise or not.

In any case, their base left them no real choice.  The base was not ready to accept a decision not to play ugly, and go for control of the Senate.

 

As a member of the "somewhat conservative" wing of the GOP I  am very familiar with the phenomenon of politicians being forced into the stupid, ugly choice instead of the smart choice.  The extremists wield lots of power.

You're 18 months away from supporting rounding up liberals and imprisoning them in concentration camps based on the justification that liberals would do it to you first if given the opportunity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13028

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

They had 'em. But they wisely chose not to use them.  Using them would not have stopped the nomination, and would have backfired.

There are some smart Dems who think the use of them here was unwise - that it will cost Senate seats and not stop the nomination.  We won't know for a few months whether the tactic was wise or not.

In any case, their base left them no real choice.  The base was not ready to accept a decision not to play ugly, and go for control of the Senate.

 

As a member of the "somewhat conservative" wing of the GOP I  am very familiar with the phenomenon of politicians being forced into the stupid, ugly choice instead of the smart choice.  The extremists wield lots of power.

This is so stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32839

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

They had 'em. But they wisely chose not to use them.  Using them would not have stopped the nomination, and would have backfired.

There are some smart Dems who think the use of them here was unwise - that it will cost Senate seats and not stop the nomination.  We won't know for a few months whether the tactic was wise or not.

In any case, their base left them no real choice.  The base was not ready to accept a decision not to play ugly, and go for control of the Senate.

 

As a member of the "somewhat conservative" wing of the GOP I  am very familiar with the phenomenon of politicians being forced into the stupid, ugly choice instead of the smart choice.  The extremists wield lots of power.

Your entire theory rests on the idea that Democrats knew Kennedy was going to resign 15+ months before he announced it. Not to mention that you argued on shaggy that you "just bring the doughnuts" to local Alabama GOP meetings and aren't really a big player but somehow now you're privy to the detailed internal discussions held by Washington Democrats. That's just silly, even for a political forum.

Edited by Huckleberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, AtticusFinch said:

I dont know how this "he blacked out" story got started.  Where is the evidence he blacked out?  How do you black out drinking beer?  Unless you bong an 18 pack, I dont think its possible

well, imagine for a minute, and this is going to be a real stretch, that mr 100 keg, king of beach week ralph club didn't stick to strictly beer in his partying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17658

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

They had 'em. But they wisely chose not to use them.  Using them would not have stopped the nomination, and would have backfired.

There are some smart Dems who think the use of them here was unwise - that it will cost Senate seats and not stop the nomination.  We won't know for a few months whether the tactic was wise or not.

In any case, their base left them no real choice.  The base was not ready to accept a decision not to play ugly, and go for control of the Senate.

 

As a member of the "somewhat conservative" wing of the GOP I  am very familiar with the phenomenon of politicians being forced into the stupid, ugly choice instead of the smart choice.  The extremists wield lots of power.

Project much?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sachick

sachick 1189

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't understand them, but I'm reluctant to make this assumption.  I wish we had a few who posted here to explain their thinking honestly. 

In some sects of Christianity, the husband is the head of the household and a woman should follow her husband. I think a lot of it is a religious/culture thing. They believe their life's work is to have babies and make their husbands sandwiches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
Just now, sachick said:

In some sects of Christianity, the husband is the head of the household and a woman should follow her husband. I think a lot of it is a religious/culture thing. They believe their life's work is to have babies and make their husbands sandwiches.

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13028

Posted
Posted
Just now, sachick said:

In some sects of Christianity, the husband is the head of the household and a woman should follow her husband. I think a lot of it is a religious/culture thing. They believe their life's work is to have babies and make their husbands sandwiches.

Christianity is a plague

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85258

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Your entire theory rests on the idea that Democrats knew Kennedy was going to resign 15+ months before he announced it. Not to mention that you argued on shaggy that you "just bring the doughnuts" to local Alabama GOP meetings and aren't really a big player but somehow now you're privy to the detailed internal discussions held by Washington Democrats. That's just silly, even for a political forum.

BUT THEY HAD ALLEGATIONS AND SAT ON THEM BECAUSE REASONS!!!!!

Tahoe is pulling another thread off topic with conspiracy allegations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MixtyMotions

MixtyMotions 102

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Your entire theory rests on the idea that Democrats knew Kennedy was going to resign 15+ months before he announced it. Not to mention that you argued on shaggy that you "just bring the doughnuts" to local Alabama GOP meetings and aren't really a big player but somehow are privy to the detailed internal discussions held by Washington Democrats. That's just silly, even for a political forum.

I am NOT a big player.

I am NOT  privy to the detailed internal discussions held by Washington Democrats.

I DO have opinions to express on the Internet.  (which you are free to disbelieve)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13028

Posted
Posted
Just now, MixtyMotions said:

I am NOT a big player.

I am NOT  privy to the detailed internal discussions held by Washington Democrats.

I DO have opinions to express on the Internet.  (which you are free to disbelieve)

Leave the opinions to the adults. Go get the donuts bitch boy

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
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...