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

Cajun

Cajun 11714

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Wait, am I understanding this right? They decided not to judge on the case.....So that somehow proves how he would/would not judge on a case? And all the right wing nuts come out applauding?

Pointing out that the "Oh my GAWD, he'll undo everything related to Roe V Wade!" crowd may have been bit ridiculous in their projections equals applauding?

Ok.

Maybe you should write a strongly worded letter to those right wing hacks over at Politico...

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-defunding-case-845056

 

The decision to refuse the cases came after Kavanaugh was confirmed as the ninth justice with strong support from anti-abortion activists.

Tim Jost, an emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, said it's "noteworthy" that Kavanaugh passed on the cases. 

"If Kavanaugh was going to deal a major blow to health care rights during his first session on the court, this would have been the case to do it," Jost said.

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List said it was "disappointed" the Supreme Court declined the case, as it called on the Trump administration to quickly finalize rules blocking federal funds to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers through the Title X family planning program.

Edited by Cajun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5562

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Pointing out that the "Oh my GAWD, he'll undo everything related to Roe V Wade!" crowd may have been bit ridiculous in their projections equals applauding?

Ok.

Maybe you should write a strongly worded letter to those right wing hacks over at Politico...

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-defunding-case-845056

 

The decision to refuse the cases came after Kavanaugh was confirmed as the ninth justice with strong support from anti-abortion activists.

Tim Jost, an emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, said it's "noteworthy" that Kavanaugh passed on the cases. 

"If Kavanaugh was going to deal a major blow to health care rights during his first session on the court, this would have been the case to do it," Jost said.

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List said it was "disappointed" the Supreme Court declined the case, as it called on the Trump administration to quickly finalize rules blocking federal funds to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers through the Title X family planning program.

You do you, bro. Seems like a lot of ball swinging for an insignificant point.

 

Just proving out the posts up above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted

What a weird thing about which to pound one's chest. One would think that this would be viewed as a defeat for conservatives, but I guess not, because it proves the libs wrong?

Because Roberts and Kav decided to deny cert, siding with the less conservative side of the court.

Suck it libs! Our guy won't take the case in order to rule against you! And you thought he was going to be hyperconservative! Fucking reactionary libs! Pwned!

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28788

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

What a weird thing about which to pound one's chest. One would think that this would be viewed as a defeat for conservatives, but I guess not, because it proves the libs wrong?

Because Roberts and Kav decided to deny cert, siding with the less conservative side of the court.

Suck it libs! Our guy won't take the case in order to rule against you! And you thought he was going to be hyperconservative! Fucking reactionary libs! Pwned!

It's almost like they don't think for themselves and just repeat what they've been told by their thought leaders on cable news or AM radio. It is weird, though, because this doesn't change the fact that conservatives will continue to wage war against all of the health services provided by Planned Parenthood just because a very small part of what they provide is abortion services. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitman

Whitman 694

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It's almost like they don't think for themselves and just repeat what they've been told by their thought leaders on cable news or AM radio. It is weird, though, because this doesn't change the fact that conservatives will continue to wage war against all of the health services provided by Planned Parenthood just because a very small part of what they provide is abortion services. 

That statement is demonstrably false just by reading their own annual report and what PP calls a service.  Commentary on the numbers from multiple news sources (both left and right)  delve into this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitman

Whitman 694

Posted
Posted

If that is the numbers from PP's statement then yes.  As I mentioned, when the numbers are examined (not just by pro-life groups) they are misleading in what PP does.  The Washington Post did a good article about this as have others.  An example is when someone comes into a PP office to get an abortion, PP counts everything they do for this person (exam, STD testing, consultation, etc) as a separate service.  That can add up to calling it 6-10 services for 1 abortion.  That's misleading and number playing just to make a  point on paper.  It's like the NRA saying they exist for hunter safety training. 

The current issue with PP is just as much about funding as it is with actual abortion.  Again, PP is disingenuous when they say no federal funds (i think they get about $500 million from fed?) are used for abortion, when federal funds are used for other things like the buildings and staff and overhead that wouldn't be there without it.  The idea or talking point of they are there and exist as a "women's health provider" is as disingenuous  as the "medical marijuana card" some states have had. It might have a few cases where it's true, but that's not the real picture.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5562

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Whitman said:

If that is the numbers from PP's statement then yes.  As I mentioned, when the numbers are examined (not just by pro-life groups) they are misleading in what PP does.  The Washington Post did a good article about this as have others.  An example is when someone comes into a PP office to get an abortion, PP counts everything they do for this person (exam, STD testing, consultation, etc) as a separate service.  That can add up to calling it 6-10 services for 1 abortion.  That's misleading and number playing just to make a  point on paper.  It's like the NRA saying they exist for hunter safety training. 

The current issue with PP is just as much about funding as it is with actual abortion.  Again, PP is disingenuous when they say no federal funds (i think they get about $500 million from fed?) are used for abortion, when federal funds are used for other things like the buildings and staff and overhead that wouldn't be there without it.  The idea or talking point of they are there and exist as a "women's health provider" is as disingenuous  as the "medical marijuana card" some states have had. It might have a few cases where it's true, but that's not the real picture.   

Then if Kav and others on the Supreme Court believe the same, why not take this opportunity to 'do the right thing'. I assume they have far more data at their disposal than you or I. The argument is either they believe it and are unwilling to address it or they believe PP is justified in the services they render and thus justified in the funding. 

 

It's crazy that the far right will see a conspiracy behind every corner, except the one right in front of their face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitman

Whitman 694

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Then if Kav and others on the Supreme Court believe the same, why not take this opportunity to 'do the right thing'. I assume they have far more data at their disposal than you or I. The argument is either they believe it and are unwilling to address it or they believe PP is justified in the services they render and thus justified in the funding. 

 

It's crazy that the far right will see a conspiracy behind every corner, except the one right in front of their face.

I was under the impression (for as little as :I have read about it), that this current ruling was more about whether lower courts should hear a certain case, not for the SC to be ruling one way or the other on funding or a federal involvement/legality of abortion.  I think those are coming and the shitshow will be turned up to an 11 if one side overreaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28788

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Whitman said:

That statement is demonstrably false just by reading their own annual report and what PP calls a service.  Commentary on the numbers from multiple news sources (both left and right)  delve into this.

The last time I looked at their budget, abortion services accounted for 3%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11714

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I wasn't aware that this case had anything to do with abortion. I understand the right-wingers think that's all Planned Parenthood does.

Pro tip:  When engaging the smug, it helps to understand what you're talking about...

 

"We oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and call on the Senate to do the same. There’s no way to sugarcoat it: with this nomination, the constitutional right to access safe, legal abortion in this country is on the line. We already know how Brett Kavanaugh would rule on Roe v. Wade, because the president told us so. We take Trump at his word that Brett Kavanaugh would overturn Roe v. Wade and get rid of the Affordable Care Act. The balance of the Supreme Court is at stake — we cannot allow it to be tilted against the constitutional right to access abortion. Generations of women, especially women of color, will be affected. And generations of people have grown up only knowing a country where they have the right to access safe, legal abortion. We cannot allow our children and grandchildren to have fewer rights than we do today."

 

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/senate-must-reject-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh

 

Here's the number to call to voice your strenuous objection to PP's uneducated opinion - 1 (800) 230-7526

Edited by Cajun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Pro tip:  When engaging the smug, it helps to understand what you're talking about... 

 

"We oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and call on the Senate to do the same. There’s no way to sugarcoat it: with this nomination, the constitutional right to access safe, legal abortion in this country is on the line. We already know how Brett Kavanaugh would rule on Roe v. Wade, because the president told us so. We take Trump at his word that Brett Kavanaugh would overturn Roe v. Wade and get rid of the Affordable Care Act. The balance of the Supreme Court is at stake — we cannot allow it to be tilted against the constitutional right to access abortion. Generations of women, especially women of color, will be affected. And generations of people have grown up only knowing a country where they have the right to access safe, legal abortion. We cannot allow our children and grandchildren to have fewer rights than we do today."

 

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/senate-must-reject-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh

 

Here's the number to call to voice your strenuous objection to PP's uneducated opinion - 1 (800) 230-7526

just out of curiosity...what point do you think you're making?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Whitman said:

An example is when someone comes into a PP office to get an abortion, PP counts everything they do for this person (exam, STD testing, consultation, etc) as a separate service.  That can add up to calling it 6-10 services for 1 abortion.  That's misleading and number playing just to make a  point on paper.

How is it misleading to count a service provided as a service provided?

(Better question: Why am I even talking to you?)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11714

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sidis said:

just out of curiosity...what point do you think you're making?

So, Buck asserted that the idea that it was the construct of the right wingers that the PP/Kavanaugh histrionics were over abortion rights to which I posted PP's position, pre-confirmation, nicely packaging said histrionics and you want to know what the point is?

Ok my man, just write it off to the musings of a "get off my lawn" Surly poster with too much time on his hands.

I want you to be comfortable.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5562

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Cajun said:

So, Buck asserted that the idea that it was the construct of the right wingers that the PP/Kavanaugh histrionics were over abortion rights to which I posted PP's position, pre-confirmation, nicely packaging said histrionics and you want to know what the point is?

Ok my man, just write it off to the musings of a "get off my lawn" Surly poster with too much time on his hands.

I want you to be comfortable.

So is it your contention that the action of the court somehow counters their "histrionics"? That this shows Kav is pro abortion rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

So is it your contention that the action of the court somehow counters their "histrionics"? That this shows Kav is pro abortion rights?

I think what it potentially shows is he isn't using his position on the court to stifle abortion at every turn, at least currently.  Unless you think there's an end game here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11050

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

What a weird thing about which to pound one's chest. One would think that this would be viewed as a defeat for conservatives, but I guess not, because it proves the libs wrong?

Because Roberts and Kav decided to deny cert, siding with the less conservative side of the court.

Suck it libs! Our guy won't take the case in order to rule against you! And you thought he was going to be hyperconservative! Fucking reactionary libs! Pwned!

Not getting Roe v Wade overturned to own the libs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32997

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Being binary is not serving you well.

On the other hand, reading comprehension is not serving you well.

WTB's assertion was that this court case was not about abortion, not that PP's Kavanaugh opposition wasn't about abortion. This has been a pretty terrible performance by you in this thread.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11714

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

On the other hand, reading comprehension is not serving you well.

WTB's assertion was that this court case was not about abortion, not that PP's Kavanaugh opposition wasn't about abortion. This has been a pretty terrible performance by you in this thread.

And, yet, non RW mainstream media are yapping away about it being tied to abortion.

Again, feel free to let them have it Huck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32997

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Cajun said:

And, yet, non RW mainstream media are yapping away about it being tied to abortion.

Again, feel free to let them have it Huck.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

You were 100% wrong about WTB and your posts were therefore completely nonsensical and pointless. Admit that part instead of trying to deflect by bringing up some other topic that wasn't being discussed.

Your performance is only getting worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11714

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

You were 100% wrong about WTB and your posts were therefore completely nonsensical and pointless. Admit that part instead of trying to deflect by bringing up some other topic that wasn't being discussed.

Your performance is only getting worse.

It has everything to do with my first post on the thread.  

Buck was responding, in part, to that.

Try to up your reading comprehension game before doling out advice on the matter, mmkay?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32997

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Cajun said:

It has everything to do with my first post on the thread.  

Buck was responding, in part, to that.

Try to up your reading comprehension game before doling out advice on the matter, mmkay?

Thanks.

So now you are forced to assume that a poster meant something they didn't say in order to defend your terrible posts. He didn't quote you and he only opined that this court case wasn't about abortion. Then you somehow twisted that into a claim that he meant that Planned Parenthood's Kavanaugh opposition wasn't about abortion.

You're coming off like a complete moron, dude. So congrats I guess, and I'll leave you to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitman

Whitman 694

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

How is it misleading to count a service provided as a service provided?

Because the intent is to mislead and down play the importance of abortion  to PP's mission/existence/business model. The commentary and articles I talked about explain that, if you chose to look them up.  I even saw a link to one from left leaning Slate Magazine  delving into what is behind the numbers.

 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

(Better question: Why am I even talking to you?)

 Because your mother chose not to abort you.

Edited by Whitman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Whitman said:

Because the intent is to mislead and down play the importance of abortion  to PP's mission/existence/business model.

Downplay against what? The pro-life assertion is that PP is nothing but an abortion factory, yes? Unless the services accounting is wrong, I don't see how honest numbers like that could be considered misleading. But then again, I'm not mentally deranged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29355

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Downplay against what? The pro-life assertion is that PP is nothing but an abortion factory, yes? Unless the services accounting is wrong, I don't see how honest numbers like that could be considered misleading. But then again, I'm not mentally deranged.

See, that there is your problem, libtard.

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...