Quantcast
Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Yes 53 47.32%
 
No 41 36.61%
 
Trump should pick a new canidate 18 16.07%
 
Total:112

 

thismeintiel said:

You do realize the FBI initially turned down looking into the allegation, right?  There wasn't enough proof to warrant an investigation.  

 

Do you have a source for this claim?

 

thismeintiel said:

And the timing shows exactly what the Dems wanted.  Otherwise they would have brought it to the committee's attention back in July so this could have been investigated privately .  Instead, they waited til the 11th hour and leaked the story to the press, which caused the calls for a hearing, thus delaying the vote.  Fortunately, we're done with the delays. 

Ford was asking to be anonymous.  

This is better than it was for Clarence Thomas, who was accused after his hearing instead of before.  

PwerlvlAmy said:
Voting is today,seems like it will be 51-49 if votes stay the same,

50-48, most likely.

Murkowski is voting present, so that her lack of vote cancels out Daines.

http://time.com/5417656/murkowski-vote-present-kavanaugh/



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:

 

thismeintiel said:

You do realize the FBI initially turned down looking into the allegation, right?  There wasn't enough proof to warrant an investigation.  

 

Do you have a source for this claim?

 

thismeintiel said:
And the timing shows exactly what the Dems wanted.  Otherwise they would have brought it to the committee's attention back in July so this could have been investigated privately .  Instead, they waited til the 11th hour and leaked the story to the press, which caused the calls for a hearing, thus delaying the vote.  Fortunately, we're done with the delays. 

Ford was asking to be anonymous.  

This is better than it was for Clarence Thomas, who was accused after his hearing instead of before.  

PwerlvlAmy said:
Voting is today,seems like it will be 51-49 if votes stay the same,

50-48, most likely.

Murkowski is voting present, so that her lack of vote cancels out Daines.

http://time.com/5417656/murkowski-vote-present-kavanaugh/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/35848/breaking-fbi-isnt-investigating-brett-kavanaugh-ashe-schow%3famp?espv=1

You do realize that the hearing with Ford was a completely different one, right? The accusation was thrown out at the last minute of his Senate hearing. So, no, it wasn't before his hearing. And it was much worse, because Thomas was not accused of gang raping. 



thismeintiel said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/35848/breaking-fbi-isnt-investigating-brett-kavanaugh-ashe-schow%3famp?espv=1

 

That doesn't say "there's not enough evidence".

It says "the FBI does not now plan to launch a criminal investigation of the matter, which would normally be handled by local authorities, if it was within the statute of limitations."

It means, it's not their job.  They aren't allowed to investigate without permission, because it's not their jurisdiction.  

thismeintiel said:

You do realize that the hearing with Ford was a completely different one, right? The accusation was thrown out at the last minute of his Senate hearing. So, no, it wasn't before his hearing. And it was much worse, because Thomas was not accused of gang raping. 

As you pointed out, Ford came forward (but not publically) in early July.  

Kavanaugh was not accused of gang raping until the third accusation.  



thismeintiel said:
Final-Fan said:

You literally said you wanted to drag the process out for the purpose of a "mic drop" which as far as I can see is pure schadenfreude.  Even if, and be sure that I dispute your characterization, but even if your claims about the Democrats were true, they would still at least have some objective to what they are doing above pure "neener neener" knife-twisting.  Which is what you explicitly wished for.  So get the fuck off your high horse. 

Yea, you didn't really comprehend a single thing I wrote, or choose not to.  But, that's ok, cause I don't really care.  Though, I think someone else in this convo is on the high horse.

You have yet to explicity dispute my characterization of what you said, let alone give a detailed objection.  I'm pretty sure I understood what you said and that if you paid attention you could understand why I don't think what you said counters what I said, but I guess I can't know for sure if you don't even identify what I supposedly didn't understand.  Or maybe what I supposedly don't understand is that you're trolling, but I've already accounted for that. 

Between a bank robber who shoots three people to death and a guy who just decides it would be fun to walk out on the street and shoot three people in the face, I have to say I think the latter is worse.  Don't take that to mean I think there is nothing wrong with the former. 

And let's say there's a bank robber who shoots three people non-lethally, and a guy who just decides it would be fun to take a baseball bat and and smack three people until they hit the ground (their injuries being much less severe).  I would say that, as a society, the bank robber deserves to be punished more harshly, but the baseball guy's attitude is more pernicious.  Especially if he is likely to do it a lot more often than the bank robber is likely to try robbing banks.  And especially if there are a lot more of him. 

And let's be honest here.  You're badmouthing Democrats just as much as you say they are Kavanaugh, though the accusations are different.  The difference is that they have a national audience and you don't. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

thismeintiel said:
the-pi-guy said:

 

Do you have a source for this claim?

 

Ford was asking to be anonymous.  

This is better than it was for Clarence Thomas, who was accused after his hearing instead of before.  

50-48, most likely.

Murkowski is voting present, so that her lack of vote cancels out Daines.

http://time.com/5417656/murkowski-vote-present-kavanaugh/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/35848/breaking-fbi-isnt-investigating-brett-kavanaugh-ashe-schow%3famp?espv=1

You do realize that the hearing with Ford was a completely different one, right? The accusation was thrown out at the last minute of his Senate hearing. So, no, it wasn't before his hearing. And it was much worse, because Thomas was not accused of gang raping. 

Just to clear up the timeline.  In the case of Clarence Thomas:

1.  Anita Hill made her accusation before the hearings, but requested anonymity.
2.  The FBI quietly did their background check and it was made available to the committee.
3.  Thomas went through his hearings with nothing particularly notable happening.  No mention is made of any accusations.
4.  The committee votes Thomas through.  The vote is 7-7, failing to give Thomas a recommendation.  The committee then votes 13-1 to send Thomas to the floor without a recommendation.
5.  The FBI background check was leaked to Nina Totenberg who published the accusation.
6.  Thomas's hearings were re-opened and both Hill and Thomas testified.
7.  Thomas is confirmed 52-48.  11 Democrats vote in favor.  2 Republicans vote against.

In the case of Kavanaugh:

1.  Ford made her accusation before the hearings, but requested anonymity.
2.  Feinstein sits on the accusation.
3.  Kavanaugh went through his hearings.  Senate Democrats broke several rules of decorum and Senate rules complaining about the release of documents, but otherwise, there was little news.
4.  The contents of the letter, including Ford's name, are leaked between the end of the hearing and the vote.  They do not make much impact at first, but Feinstein acknowledges the letter and says she has now sent it to the FBI.
5.  A vote is scheduled.
6.  Ford comes forward to the Washington Post.
7.  The committee vote is delayed in favor of a supplemental hearing to hear testimony.  It is further delayed by negotiations with Ford.
8.  Ford and Kavanaugh testify.
9.  Kavanaugh is passed through the judiciary committee on party lines, but Flake states that he will vote against on the full floor if there is not an FBI investigation.
10.  Another background check happens.  Nothing of interest appears to have been discovered.
11.  As of the time of this writing, it appears that Kavanaugh will be confirmed 50-48.  1 Democrat in favor.  0 Republicans against.  With 1 Republican absent and Murkowski, who would be a No, voting present as a part of a courtesy vote swap to allow Daines to walk his daughter down the aisle at his wedding.

Last edited by NightlyPoe - on 06 October 2018

Around the Network

It looks like I was mistaken about the timeline of the Anita Hill events.  

But I do want to say 2 things.  

One, is that a lot of people have mischaracterized both Kavanaugh and Ford in this thread.  None of her witnesses deny the events for example, they said they do not recall a party from nearly 40 years ago.  Most people can't even remember what they had for lunch yesterday, and yet people are shocked that several people can't remember very specific events from 40 years ago.  

Two, I believe he should not be appointed.  Not because I think he's guilty.  I don't know if he did it.  He is 100% innocent until he's proven guilty.

But he has not conducted himself the way a judge should.  This man is being given a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country, and he should be held to the highest standard.  Despite the claims, it doesn't ruin his life if he doesn't get it.  



The backlash on this confirmation is going to be massive.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.



Stay safe Americans



Nothing to see here, move along

Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court justice. Now, what will the Democrats do? Bitch and cry? Self-reflect?



Aura7541 said:
Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court justice. Now, what will the Democrats do? Bitch and cry? Self-reflect?

Vote.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.