I apologize.
I was rightly called out and warned for my comments on this thread.
I’ll take it elsewhere.
My current faint hope is that Roberts’ conscience increasingly bothers him over the blatant politicization of the court, and he moves towards the center…
I’m sure whichever lever induced his the-night-before change of heart in Sibelius is still there to be moved…
Asahi, the Dems had a candidate like you’re looking for in the 2016 election, with James Webb. Decorated Marine, Secretary of the Navy, published author, and the party couldn’t run fast enough away from him.
No, I made a remark that was peripheral to something else I was saying - and it wasn’t even a claim, it was a mildly amusing fantasy I was indulging myself in.
If YOU want to make a big deal about some incidental remark of mine that I attach no importance to, that’s on YOU. Go argue with yourself.
You’re ok with underage drinking but not with the logical consequences of that? Exactly which part of his alcohol sodden brain was supposed to be tell him not to do what he did to Dr. Ford, assuming he even did it? You do know that alcohol affects the very circuits our brains use to compute with, right?
The lying to Congress, ok, a valid objection. It’s entirely possible that he has no memory of this supposed rape, but there’s no way he doesn’t know that he has often been blackout drunk and done things with poor judgement.
And the partisan feelings? What partisan feelings? He was accused of a rape that, in his mind, he never did. And it is impossible to prove he didn’t commit it. I agree that the man was not showing proper decorum, but he did have some valid points. Due Process means you don’t act on uncorroborated statements from a single person 36 years ago. No rational unbiased finder of fact would decide against Kavanaugh with such piss poor evidence.
And no, I am hugely liberal and I think the nomination of this man is going to probably cause changes that will be felt for many decades, if not generations.
For my own part, apology accepted. We all get overheated sometimes, and it can be hard to step back from it.
<cough>Clinton</cough>
I indulged in underage drinking, and even more underage pot smoking (if there had been a legal age for that back then :))yet I didn’t try to force myself on anyone while drunk or stoned, either while underage or during adulthood. So it’s not a ‘logical consequence.’ If you don’t think women are supposed to be your sex toys, drinking won’t turn you into someone who tries to use them like that. I expect that if one thinks of women that way, but normally has the sense to restrain oneself from acting on those thoughts, drinking might well loosen those restraints, but that’s probably true for adults as well.
At any rate, what psychobunny appears to be saying is that drinking while underage 35 years ago shouldn’t disqualify someone from a Supreme Court seat now. (Lying now about whatever one might have been doing during whatever period of one’s life, OTOH, is a different story.)
OK, but he was the one who turned this accusation into a counter-accusation of a Democratic conspiracy, the Clintons’ revenge and all that.
A false accusation doesn’t necessarily imply a partisan hit job, even if the other party is naturally more interested in exploring the possibility that it might be true. (a) He should know that quite well from his work on the Starr team, and (b) if his lawyerly mind can’t make distinctions like that, then he’s gonna be a really lousy judge.
I drank underage. I have had a few blackout drinking moments over the years.
I have never assaulted (sexually or otherwise) a woman (or anyone) while drunk, or even blackout drunk, because it is not in my nature to do that. I’ve done stupid shit to be sure but not that kind of stupid shit.
Anecdotal but it proves being drunk is no excuse. Lots of drunk people, I would venture to say most, do not sexually assault people…ever.
Pretty thorough look into the FBI investigation by the NYT, starting the day after Trump said the FBI could investigate anyone (after NBC said FBI was limited). Alot of detail into who and why people were investigated.
NOPE. You made a silly claim that Senators vote in alphabetical order. Senator Manchin could vote last if he wanted to.
You really haven’t ever watched a Senate vote? 
Well, let’s see my claim:
Bolding mine.
You’ve exposed my fantasy as a fraud. Congratulations, you’ve owned a lib! 
Yeah, pretty cool to simultaneously be (a) a close friend of Kavanaugh’s, (b) the guy in charge of getting Kav confirmed, and (c) the guy who got to set the parameters of an investigation into Kav’s conduct.
Reminds me of all the hay that Republicans made over that tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch. Here, there didn’t even need to be a meeting, because Don McGahn, Kavanaugh’s friend and the guy in charge of getting him confirmed, was the same Don McGahn who was in charge of Kavanaugh being investigated.
Last thought before I do my part in letting this thread die:
Regardless of the truth of Ford’s and Ramirez’ allegations, what we have repeatedly seen in Kavanaugh is that truth and honesty aren’t exactly high priorities for him. In more normal times, the piling up of evidence supporting that assertion would have easily sunk his nomination.
Whoever filled the vacancy left on the Court by Justice Kennedy’s retirement, it would have been a person who was coming from an extremely conservative point of view. But for some reason it became a matter of paramount importance to conservatives that this person, rather than some other extremely conservative person, must be elevated to the Supreme Court, regardless of his strained relationship with the truth.
Why Kavanaugh, rather than some other conservative? It seems to have come down to dominance politics. Kavanaugh had to be put on the Court to own the libs, essentially. I guess it was worth taking a crap on the Court to do so, because that’s what they’re doing by putting this piece of damaged goods on the Court, when they could have elevated someone just as conservative but without the obvious flaws and baggage that Kavanaugh has.
They have won the Court by demonstrating their lack of respect for it. They will surely expect others to continue to respect the Court and its decisions. We’ll see how that works.
The notion that the Supreme Court are impartial arbiters of the law, and not just politicians in robes, has now vanished for me with the elevation of this screaming, red faced, partisan hack to the highest Court in the land. I’m now fully in favor of FDR style court packing.
Collins says she voted for every nominee no matter which president picked them. I guess she forgot about Garland.
2 out of 9 of the justices were put there by a president who lost the popular vote during the term that they were nominated, and a 3rd was put there by a president who initially lost the popular vote and wouldn’t have been in office otherwise. So, fully one third of the supreme court is there against the will of the majority of Americans.
All three branches of government are now run by the party who gets fewer votes. That’s not sustainable, and the people can’t be faulted for starting to talk about extreme measures to counter that.
I think the people in 1776 had no idea how big some states would get vs. others. So giving 2 votes to 500k people vs 2 votes to 40 mil people is pretty much out of whack.
Or so you think. And I’m sure if a woman who you knew back in high school came out and said you did assault her one time. And you don’t even remember meeting her. You’d be totally cool and collected and wouldn’t get angry at the accusations, right?
You’re a physical machine subject to the same laws that all of us are.
Same with you. italics added. 75% of rapes had alcohol involved. It’s clearly part of it. Maybe you got lucky, but both posters here sound like those smokers you talk to. “I’m not addicted, I just like the taste of cigarettes…”
Part of the problem is that the way the other side saw it, that notion had been broken all the way back at the Warren court at least.