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

Homercles

Homercles 10206

Posted
Posted

I’m not a lawyer.

 

Isn’t Roe v Wade going to pop up in a dozen places hoping to bubble up to SCOTUS the moment this guy is confirmed?

 

We’ve got two young kids and had a tubal done during c section...so my opportunities for and probability of having more kids are incredibly close to zero, so abortion rights almost certainly do not affect me directly anymore.

 

NPR this morning had a piece on the ‘new normal’ for many community college enrollees...didn’t immediately start after high school, work full time, no parental support and/or are themselves single parents. That got me thinking about this whole ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’ thing that feels like a huge contradiction to easy access to birth control, early abortions (though I’d much prefer they use birth control), educational loan assistance, financial assistance for child necessities with low income parents, subsidized health care, etc.

 

If you want these people to truly help themselves getting to a higher rung in the economy via secondary education...why strive to shutdown government assistance at all levels? If poor people tend to make poorer choices that lead to higher reproductivity that often amount to a drain on society, why work to remove things like planned parenthood or inexpensive hormonal birth control? Blanket abstinence certainly doesn’t work especially when sex is one of your few choices for affordable entertainment...

 

That political cartoon I posted has stuck with me for years as representative of the legislative mood of a lot of rich old white guts who have no reasonable stake in a very risky game.

 

Maybe I’m also sick of those people saying they support free market / small government out of one side of their mouth while imposing their own strict religious/social/economic views out the other. It really does feel like they purposefully propagate fear for their own political gain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14935

Posted
Posted
I’m not a lawyer.
 
Isn’t Roe v Wade going to pop up in a dozen places hoping to bubble up to SCOTUS the moment this guy is confirmed?
 
We’ve got two young kids and had a tubal done during c section...so my opportunities for and probability of having more kids are incredibly close to zero, so abortion rights almost certainly do not affect me directly anymore.
 
NPR this morning had a piece on the ‘new normal’ for many community college enrollees...didn’t immediately start after high school, work full time, no parental support and/or are themselves single parents. That got me thinking about this whole ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’ thing that feels like a huge contradiction to easy access to birth control, early abortions (though I’d much prefer they use birth control), educational loan assistance, financial assistance for child necessities with low income parents, subsidized health care, etc.
 
If you want these people to truly help themselves getting to a higher rung in the economy via secondary education...why strive to shutdown government assistance at all levels? If poor people tend to make poorer choices that lead to higher reproductivity that often amount to a drain on society, why work to remove things like planned parenthood or inexpensive hormonal birth control? Blanket abstinence certainly doesn’t work especially when sex is one of your few choices for affordable entertainment...
 
That political cartoon I posted has stuck with me for years as representative of the legislative mood of a lot of rich old white guts who have no reasonable stake in a very risky game.
 
Maybe I’m also sick of those people saying they support free market / small government out of one side of their mouth while imposing their own strict religious/social/economic views out the other. It really does feel like they purposefully propagate fear for their own political gain.
 


Are any of your kids girls?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTDD

UTDD 362

Posted
Posted

I don't think Roberts will ever vote for a complete removal of Roe as a fundamental right to privacy.  I could be wrong, but I feel he really does respect stare decisis and also thinks about the institution of the Supreme Court itself a lot more than some of the other Supreme Court justices.  He might have no problem not giving the right of abortion if it was a new legal issue, but it's quite different to remove a right that has been granted and affirmed again.  Having said that, you certainly could see states chip away at abortion rights with access, what time period of pregnancy, and so forth.  A possible best and worst case scenario I see depending which side you are on is that in the end it becomes difficult enough to get abortions in a specific state so people will have to cross state lines perhaps for easier access or even do something themselves.  Hard to say though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31512

Posted
Posted
Just now, UTDD said:

I don't think Roberts will ever vote for a complete removal of Roe as a fundamental right to privacy.  I could be wrong, but I feel he really does respect stare decisis and also thinks about the institution of the Supreme Court itself a lot more than some of the other Supreme Court justices.  He might have no problem not giving the right of abortion if it was a new legal issue, but it's quite different to remove a right that has been granted and affirmed again.  Having said that, you certainly could see states chip away at abortion rights with access, what time period of pregnancy, and so forth.  A possible best and worst case scenario I see depending which side you are on is that in the end it becomes difficult enough to get abortions in a specific state so people will have to cross state lines perhaps for easier access or even do something themselves.  Hard to say though.  

Agreed.  I think several of the justices would come down like this at nut-cutting time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4062

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Are you seriously going to argue that outlawing abortion wouldnt lead to a decrease in deaths? Sure some extremely small percentage of women might permanently damage their vaginas or worse, but the amount of childrens who's lives will be saved will dwarf that number in comparison. 

planet-pretend-logo-RGB-shaded.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That's one argument. I don't buy it. Why risk it? If Roe is overturned, women will die in states that outlaw abortion.

What about the women inside the womb that die in states that don't outlaw abortion?  I've gone back and forth on my position on abortion my whole life but one argument that always gets made that I will never understand is the "being against abortion is being anti-feminist" argument.  In other words people making this argument are claiming that being for a medical procedure that has resulted in millions and millions of women never seeing the light of day since 1972 is taking a pro-woman position.  This is like saying that supporting giving blankets infected with the smallpox virus to Native Americans is taking a pro-Native American position.  I can guarandamntee that if abortion was outlawed every year less women would die due to illegal abortions than will get flushed down the drain every year abortion is not outlawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

A large group of people think abortion is the murder of babies.

A large group of people think abortion is lancing a boil.

The fundamental, philosophical and psychological basis are *so* different that it doesn't seem worth trying to reasonably discuss it, whichever side you fall on, as a supportive point on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

A large group of people think abortion is the murder of babies.

A large group of people think abortion is lancing a boil.

The fundamental, philosophical and psychological basis are *so* different that it doesn't seem worth trying to reasonably discuss it, whichever side you fall on, as a supportive point on this thread.

Nobody thinks its lancing a boil. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29360

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

What are they?  Serious question. 

1. He lied under oath in 2006 about not being involved in the process to nominate Bill Pryor

2. He lied about not knowing that Leahy's emails were stolen

3. He lied about when he first learned about the Bush administration's warrentless wiretap program

 

Those are just the ones I'm aware of. Given his extensive career in ratfucking, I'm probably missing some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Nobody thinks its lancing a boil. 

Should I have said the removal of a cyst instead? The point being, it's simply a medical procedure to excise a growth/something unwanted that isn't alive and constituting of murder (or at the very least, having ethical causes and effects).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Should I have said the removal of a cyst instead? The point being, it's simply a medical procedure to excise a growth/something unwanted that isn't alive and constituting of murder (or at the very least, having ethical causes and effects).

Again wrong. It's a very hard and emotional decision for a woman to make.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

A large group of people think abortion is the murder of babies.

A large group of people think abortion is lancing a boil.

The fundamental, philosophical and psychological basis are *so* different that it doesn't seem worth trying to reasonably discuss it, whichever side you fall on, as a supportive point on this thread.

Neither of these characterizations is accurate, though.   People use that kind of dramatic rhetoric because it's easier than critical thinking.   Take all of the people who scream that abortion is the murder of children.   A huge chunk of them are suddenly ok with it, at least at some point in the pregnancy, if the child is the product of rape/incest, even though none would be ok with murdering an actual born baby who was the product of rape.   Of the rest, if you actually put them in a situation in which they really needed an abortion, or to pay for an abortion of a mistress, many would do it, even though most of those people couldn't bring themselves to kill a baby.   If push came to shove, very few people on the right would actually consider an early fetus to be a baby, and very few on the left would consider a 9-month fetus to not be a baby. 

The political issue of abortion is entirely separate from the reality.    For the right, it's simply a brainless "get out of bad policy free" card that gives people an excuse to always vote R without taking responsibility for any of the consequences on other issues.  If Roe is overturned, Dems will try to do the same thing. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31512

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

1. He lied under oath in 2006 about not being involved in the process to nominate Bill Pryor

2. He lied about not knowing that Leahy's emails were stolen

3. He lied about when he first learned about the Bush administration's warrentless wiretap program

 

Those are just the ones I'm aware of. Given his extensive career in ratfucking, I'm probably missing some.

Like the ones jimmy mentioned, I think there's going to need to be more proof of that before anything could come of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Washpark

Washpark 176

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If only there was a way to prevent abortions without government intervention.

Sexual education and contraception are just too hard to get behind for the pro-lifer.

No, we need the government to solve this “problem”. 

Kavanaugh called birth control as abortion inducing pill. 

Guy is an extremist that probably believes that abstinence is the only form of birth control 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29360

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Like the ones jimmy mentioned, I think there's going to need to be more proof of that before anything could come of it.

Oh I'm certain nothing will ever come of it, but that has nothing to do with whether he lied under oath about these things. He did. The lack of any repercussions doesn't change that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31512

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Oh I'm certain nothing will ever come of it, but that has nothing to do with whether he lied under oath about these things. He did. The lack of any repercussions doesn't change that. 

Eh, I'm not convinced, at least what I have seen of the Pryor thing and the Dem emails.  I could easily be convinced otherwise with more docs.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Yeah, I have to admit, that second video appears to be pretty damning.  I didn't think she was doing in intentionally the first time, but I can't think of a reasonable other explanation for the second. 

How about to fuck with all the over reactive idiots on Twitter from when she did it the first time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

How about to fuck with all the over reactive idiots on Twitter from when she did it the first time?

That's the exact explanation I'm giving.  She's intentionally doing the hand sign to gaslight people.  Which is extremely reckless and disturbing. 

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...