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
poklane said:
When the Democrats gain power they should just stack the court.

There's no guarantee that any vacancies will come up whenever the Democrats next control the White House. Plus, realistically a president only has their first two years to nominate a Supreme Court justice, since they almost always lose control of congress after that (the only president in recent times not to do so, believe it or not, was George W. Bush).



Around the Network
Aura7541 said:
dharh said:

Vote.

And how will the Democrats get the votes needed to win?

Got me.. They're sure not winning people over with their tantrums, character assassinations (ie "Susan Collins is a rape apologist!!!1") and hatred born of a mob mentality.

Events like this make it more clear why myself and many others #Walkaway.

These guys are endangering themselves of becoming not just a minority party but a small, insignificant one at this rate if they keep it up.

Dems need to return to level-headed debate and and temperament. drop the Victimhood Cult, extremism, and outrage, and get back to the issues of the middle/working class. THEN they'll start winning people back, maybe even myself. But I don't see that happening in my lifetime at this point. Unfortunately for them, there are two small parties that DO focus more on the real issues and are more in touch (Green and Libertarian) that I'm sure would be more than willing and able to step in and fill the void left by the increasingly nutty Democrats.



OlfinBedwere said:
poklane said:
When the Democrats gain power they should just stack the court.

There's no guarantee that any vacancies will come up whenever the Democrats next control the White House. Plus, realistically a president only has their first two years to nominate a Supreme Court justice, since they almost always lose control of congress after that (the only president in recent times not to do so, believe it or not, was George W. Bush).

You don't need a vacancy in order to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court, the constitution doesn't specify how many judges are on it. If the Democrats get the necessary power there would be nothing stopping them from just throwing additional judges on the SC.



DarthMetalliCube said:

Got me.. They're sure not winning people over with their tantrums, character assassinations (ie "Susan Collins is a rape apologist!!!1") and hatred born of a mob mentality.

Events like this make it more clear why myself and many others #Walkaway.

These guys are endangering themselves of becoming not just a minority party but a small, insignificant one at this rate if they keep it up.

Dems need to return to level-headed debate and and temperament. drop the Victimhood Cult, extremism, and outrage, and get back to the issues of the middle/working class. THEN they'll start winning people back, maybe even myself. But I don't see that happening in my lifetime at this point. Unfortunately for them, there are two small parties that DO focus more on the real issues and are more in touch (Green and Libertarian) that I'm sure would be more than willing and able to step in and fill the void left by the increasingly nutty Democrats.

The Democrats have survived causing the Civil War, the Vietnam War, and having the only two presidents ever to be impeached coming from their party. And on the flip-side, the Republicans have survived causing the Great Depression, the Iraq War, and having the two biggest political scandals in the country's history (Teapot Dome and Watergate) happen on their watch.

Heaven knows the country could do with more than just two parties, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Republicans and Democrats are damn-near indestructible by this point. And I don't think the "SJW" crowd are going to destroy them as a viable party any more than the Tea Party did to the Republicans ten years ago.



 

NightlyPoe said:

-He claimed that Ford's witnesses said the event didn't happen.  That's false.

Ford's friend said that she doesn't remember any event like that and doesn't know Kavanaugh at all.  This is a distinction without a difference, not a lie.

It's a distinction with a huge difference.  

There's a massive, massive difference between "I don't remember", and "This didn't happen."

Taking faulty memory as proof something didn't happen, does not make for a judge.  

NightlyPoe said:

The July 1 date that you're describing happened miles away in a building unlike the one Ford described.  It is basically an internet rumor.  And just to completely spike it, her legal team admitted that that it couldn't be the date because it would have included people she would remember.

You're missing the point.  I'm not saying this is the event where the alleged assault happened.

He claimed he had never attended any event like the one described, yet his calendar contradicts that.

NightlyPoe said:

-He claimed that boofing referred to flatulence.

And people have confirmed that it was slang for flatulence at his school.

-He claimed that the devil's triangle refers to a drinking game.  

And people have confirmed that it is a drinking game, including people at Yale who say he taught it to them.

Slang is ever-changing, so trying to pin down a precise meaning for something to within a specific school is impossible.

@bold: Do you have a source for these?

@italics: Yes slang changes, but it's not impossible to figure out a precise meaning.  



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
NightlyPoe said:

Despite the constant drumbeat, there's been no evidence that Kavanaugh lied about anything.

-He lied about the drinking age in Maryland.

-He claimed that Ford's witnesses said the event didn't happen.  That's false.

-He claimed that an event like the one described by Ford never happened, even though his calendar lists such an event.

-He claimed that boofing referred to flatulence.

-He claimed that the devil's triangle refers to a drinking game.  

So eager to believe he is lying but refuse to believe she might be when there are claims that both her experience with lie-detectors and hear fear of flying might be lies according to her ex-boyfriend



Nothing to see here, move along

melbye said:

So eager to believe he is lying but refuse to believe she might be

Of course she might be.

I've never said he was guilty of the assault.  I've been careful about saying "alleged assault", because he is innocent of the claimed assault.

Just because 1 person is lying, doesn't mean the other person isn't.    

melbye said:

she might be when there are claims that both her experience with lie-detectors and hear fear of flying might be lies according to her ex-boyfriend

There's no such thing as a lie detector.  

On the other mark, people can be afraid of something and still do it.  I was deathly afraid of driving for years, and yet I had to drive hours every day.  

I was deathly afraid of flying, and yet I've had to do it numerous times.  



OlfinBedwere said:
poklane said:
When the Democrats gain power they should just stack the court.

There's no guarantee that any vacancies will come up whenever the Democrats next control the White House.

I think he means that they should expand the court until they get a majority.

Plus, realistically a president only has their first two years to nominate a Supreme Court justice, since they almost always lose control of congress after that (the only president in recent times not to do so, believe it or not, was George W. Bush).

That's actually not correct.  In terms of the Senate, which the only one that matters for nominations other than VP, Clinton and Eisenhower are the only two presidents in modern times to lose a Senate majority after their first midterm.  Before that you have to go back to Cleveland's second time being president and Hayes.



NightlyPoe said:

That's actually not correct.  In terms of the Senate, which the only one that matters for nominations other than VP, Clinton and Eisenhower are the only two presidents in modern times to lose a Senate majority after their first midterm.  Before that you have to go back to Cleveland's second time being president and Hayes.

For some reason I had remembered Bush Sr. and Obama losing control of the senate during their initial mid-terms, but it looks like you're right - the former never had control of the senate to begin with, while it was the latter's second mid-terms where that happened.



NightlyPoe said:
OlfinBedwere said:

There's no guarantee that any vacancies will come up whenever the Democrats next control the White House.

I think he means that they should expand the court until they get a majority.

Ding ding ding