By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - the reason why republicans want kavanaugh

melbye said:
Mr Puggsly said:

That's funny, I looked up states have a voter ID or deemed the most strict. It turns out some of those states have the highest voter turnouts in the country. By your logic, it should be the other way around.

I don't buy the argument that acquiring ID is a huge burden for voting and some states deemed strict actually have high voter turnouts. Dems like to boast their voters are so educated, they should be able to figure out how to get an ID.

I'm lost on what you're saying about gerrymandering. That affects who gets elected in those districts.

I find this conflict over requiring voter ID weird, pretty obvious that if you are going to do something so important you should have something that confirm it's you. Were i am from you ain't voting without and ID

That's an excellent point I never considered like that.

I mean voter fraud is a pretty serious crime, so why bother getting IDs involved?



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network

The reason why the Republicans want Kavanaugh is because Kavanaugh is a Republican. To quote Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society that consulted Trump: "You can throw a dart at that list of possible candidates and anyone would be fine".



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
PwerlvlAmy said:

he showed hes more than qualified for the job. Based off his job/track record alone. But we won't agree on that, so no worries.

All that was shown was that there wasn't enough evidence for this to be worth anyones time - yet Kav's own actions made him look like a terrible choice. Just stopping it as "ohhh yeah he was prolly innocent so gud" is disconcerting, particularly because what made him look bad wasn't the dems but himself. It is just such a sad conclusion to come to because it is stopping the process of critical thinking before it is truly done. Is a liar who we want for a nominee? Sorry, maybe I had one too many Devils Triangles. 

Agreed. Even a living for Republican Supreme Court Justice said he believed Kavanaugh's performance during the hearings showed that he wasn't fit for the court -- despite the fact that the same judge was a fan of Kav's voting record. You don't have to be on the left ideologicially to see that Kavanaugh is not an ethical and unbiased jurist. 



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

thismeintiel said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I really have nothing to gain from you because, unlike me who was falsely accused of doing so, it is very very very obvious that you just look to fight. That's all you've done on the other threads and that's all you'll do in this one. 

I don't even hate Kavanaugh lol ... just don't think he's qualified. 

More accurately, I would say you don't really have any facts to support your side.  It's all based on emotion.  But, that's fine.  To each their own.  Have a nice night.

Brett Kavanaugh was adamant as he sat in the witness chair at his 2006 confirmation hearing to be an appeals court judge. Kavanaugh was being questioned by Democrats about his knowledge of President George W. Bush's torture policy and treatment of detainees while he served as associate White House counsel.

He responded that he was "not involved" in "questions about the rules governing detention of combatants."

Senate Democrats have never fully accepted Kavanaugh's answers to questions about one of the Bush administration's most controversial policies, and now they are prepared to resurrect the issue as Kavanaugh faces a hearing as President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., whose questions in 2006 elicited Kavanaugh's denial, said in an interview this week that "what he told us under oath is not accurate."

Democrats are demanding Bush White House files to pin down specifics of any Kavanaugh involvement in detainee policy discussions, which could slow down the Trump administration's hope to have Kavanaugh confirmed before the Supreme Court reconvenes on Oct. 1.

Kavanaugh was involved in at least one contentious meeting at the White House Counsel's Office in 2002, and two former White House officials detailed his role in interviews this week with The Washington Post. Bush was then developing his policy on detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, and Kavanaugh was asked to interpret an important question about how the detainee policy was likely to be viewed in a Supreme Court challenge, specifically by Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had served as a clerk.

Kavanaugh weighed in on how he thought Kennedy would vote on whether certain detainees should be denied a chance to be heard and have legal counsel, according to the other participants.

Kavanaugh had already been confirmed for the circuit court when the White House meeting became public in a Post report. Democrats including Durbin have sought ever since to question Kavanaugh about whether he misled the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh declined an interview request. White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement that "Judge Kavanaugh's testimony accurately reflected the facts."

The two former White House officials who were in the meeting with Kavanaugh said they don't think Kavanaugh was in the loop on Bush's overall torture policy. One of those officials, former Deputy White House Counsel Tim Flanigan, said that the policy was tightly "compartmentalized" and that Kavanaugh was not authorized to know about it. The second official agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity and confirmed Flanigan's recollection.

Still, Durbin said that there is a conflict between Kavanaugh's testimony that he was not involved in rules governing detainees and his participation in a meeting about whether detainees should be given legal counsel. "It is a critical element in detention and interrogation as to whether a person is represented by counsel," Durbin said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, echoed Durbin's concern, saying in a statement to The Post that Kavanaugh "held high-level positions within the White House, and he reportedly weighed in on how his former boss, Justice Kennedy, would rule on detainee treatment issues. Yet he claimed he had no knowledge of the torture policies of the Bush Administration during his 2006 confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee. This is precisely why this document production is so crucial in this confirmation process."

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-bush-torture-20180718-story.html

 

He may have not been involved in the torture side but he is a shady mother fucker just like all the Bush Jr. goons.  He obviously weighed in on the legal representation issue.  Now before you start spouting that I support terrorist (which Cheney and Bush Jr. used against democrats in 2004 reelection), I just want to say that I think it is fucked up for CIA to run secret prisons while torturing people (torture is proven not to be effective interrogating method because the person will simply say anything to make it stop).  I can't think of one credible case where torture resulted in us gaining any advantage.  Just look at the aftermath of Abu Ghraib.  That surely won us a lot of friends in Iraq.

Last edited by sethnintendo - on 09 October 2018

The Republicans had plenty of right leaning justices to chose from.
They did not have to pick someone credibly accused of sexual assault, who apparently and blatantly lies multiple times under oath as his go-to move, has 0 judicial temperament, and whose classmates and roommates say was lying under oath. (Some of whom were originally in support of Kavanaugh, as part of the letter of 60 women, republicans, etc.)
They could have dumped Kavanaugh and gone with someone else before the midterms. Niel Gorsich had 0 rape allegations against him.

The fact that they still went with Kavanaugh, even after many of them, including Trump, said Dr Ford was credible, is something that many people will never forget.

thismeintiel said: 
Another "innocent until proven guilty" win. Good. Looks like the country is headed in the right direction.

Is that why people coming in for their trial are wearing shackles in the US?

And if you hypothetically had to leave your daughter with a babysitter, you would not chose someone who had been accused of sexual assault by multiple women. You'd pick someone else.

Innocent until your accuser takes a polygraph test and you refuse, oppose an FBI investigation, lie under oath, and other classmates (not just the accusers) say they heard talks about some of these sexual misconduct allegations back when it happened.

Last edited by Hiku - on 09 October 2018

Around the Network

It has begun.

 

https://twitter.com/LawyersComm/status/1050507434815614976?s=19



And that is because Republicans have a demographic disadvantage. The millennial voter-base keeps growing and they are mostly blue.



deskpro2k3 said:

 

Texas has very similar demographics to California, but one reason Texas is red and California is blue is because in California every citizen is able to vote. A federal court has ruled seven times that Texas Republicans drew their congressional districts with racial discriminatory intent, but the federal court in Texas won't have the final say on this. That's where the Supreme Court comes in and they'll have the final say, and that's why Republicans are so desperately wanting to get Kavanaugh confirmed.

The more Justices republicans get to pick, the more those justices gets to protect unlimited campaign spending, and voter suppression laws which helps more republicans get elected.

I challenge you to explain why this ruling was wrong. I'll use your link and copy/paste directly from it.

A federal district court found that the state's plan was marred by racially discriminatory intent, watering down the voting power of the state's Latinos. The lower court ruled that the state failed to prove that its map did not discriminate. But Justice Samuel Alito, joined by the Supreme Court's other conservatives, said the lower court was wrong to hold that the state had the burden to prove it was not discriminating. "The burden of proof lies with the challenger, not the state," he wrote. The challengers, Alito continued, had the legal burden "to overcome the presumption of legislative good faith and show that the 2013 legislature acted with invidious intent" when it adjusted the boundaries in response to earlier court rulings.

Just answer that to me. What is wrong with that ruling?

Oh and I suppose based on your last comment, you believe that voter ID laws are discriminatory. If so, please explain how so.



irstupid said:
deskpro2k3 said:

 

Texas has very similar demographics to California, but one reason Texas is red and California is blue is because in California every citizen is able to vote. A federal court has ruled seven times that Texas Republicans drew their congressional districts with racial discriminatory intent, but the federal court in Texas won't have the final say on this. That's where the Supreme Court comes in and they'll have the final say, and that's why Republicans are so desperately wanting to get Kavanaugh confirmed.

The more Justices republicans get to pick, the more those justices gets to protect unlimited campaign spending, and voter suppression laws which helps more republicans get elected.

I challenge you to explain why this ruling was wrong. I'll use your link and copy/paste directly from it.

A federal district court found that the state's plan was marred by racially discriminatory intent, watering down the voting power of the state's Latinos. The lower court ruled that the state failed to prove that its map did not discriminate. But Justice Samuel Alito, joined by the Supreme Court's other conservatives, said the lower court was wrong to hold that the state had the burden to prove it was not discriminating. "The burden of proof lies with the challenger, not the state," he wrote. The challengers, Alito continued, had the legal burden "to overcome the presumption of legislative good faith and show that the 2013 legislature acted with invidious intent" when it adjusted the boundaries in response to earlier court rulings.

Just answer that to me. What is wrong with that ruling?

Oh and I suppose based on your last comment, you believe that voter ID laws are discriminatory. If so, please explain how so.

That was 2013, and the problem still exist. the supreme court has the final say, and they didn't do enough to stop the voter suppression.

 

Never said voter ID is discriminatory. Strict laws does not equal discrimination.



i want a 2 question polygraph. hell i dont even need collaborating witneses, evidence or anything. lets see whoes life can be fucked up. never from a professor that donated to democrats and was a leftist before, never would that happen, or sound like a valley girl with a made up voice sounding totally bullshit like? no woman that has had real abuse is being served by this clear political circus.

time will tell where that blue wave went after it hits the red wall in november. my Spartacus moment...... lol the left is such a deranged joke.