Mcconnell just said that there is no doubt that if the shoe was on the other foot the dems would have done what he did to garland.
Anybody believe that? What kind of signs point to that?
Yes. What’s was stunning to me (and rather determinative) was that *literally no one * came forward to directly support anything. Everyone who was called for support was either someone told decades later, or a hearsay repeater or saying he was lying about what he did not lie about.
Even if one person had some relatively close corroboration about just one facet, it was over. If someone had come forward and said *Cannot remember him raping anyone, but totally remember him and Ford at parties and they even talked I think * it would be Convict Kavanaugh not Justice Kavanaugh.
While no one had done this to a SC nominee, the Biden rule was invoked to refuse to proceed with hearings for a couple of DC circuit Appeals Court nominees most notably John Roberts in 1992 and Elena Kagan in 1999-2000.
Also I think that if it had been say RBG or Breyer, rather than Scalia who had died, then Garland might have been considered, as that would not change the Courts balance.
Same way if Kavanaugh had been nominated instead of Gorsuch in 2017, I suspect he would have gotten through fairly easily, a conservative replacing another conservative, and Fords letter would have been simply been left unused like Feinstein seemed to have intended to do originally, while Gorsuch for Kennedy would have faced similar levels of opposition, as Brett K did, even without a sex scandal (presuming he has no similar unrevealed claims).
It’s politics. I have high confidence that would be the case.
I’m relieved that there was only one Democrat that voted yes, I honestly expected 3-4. Maybe there is a slim glimmer of hope that Democratic Leadership won’t always be completely useless.
Happy Days are here again!
Good. And this is my delayed post in response. As an outsider looking in, I’m saddened and thoroughly embarrassed by this country and fearful for where it’s heading. Its institutions are being systematically corrupted by the unscrupulous man-child idiot at its helm, its role in the world systematically degraded. A former global leader and an icon of freedom and democracy is turning into a laughingstock, and even if and when decent citizens regain control of the government, the malignancy that is Kavanaugh will be inflicting damage to society and undermining the integrity of the Supreme Court for a generation.
And all because of the pathetic apathy of those who can’t even be bothered to vote and, I must admit, also the relative uselessness of the Democratic Party as a force for political mobilization. Dems would be fine if there was an engaged electorate, but as it is, voters only respond when they’re taken by the hand and told what to think and why. Republicans and the mighty plutocracy can do that, and lie about it convincingly. Democrats just naively depend on voters to be informed and engaged, but they’re all at home watching reality TV or Fox News while their country goes straight down the shitter. Want decent affordable health care, safety from rampant gun violence, and relatively safe, clean environment? You can have it, but you’ll have to emigrate.
I was unaware that Nixon got less votes than his opponent.
When you have to use precedents that are more than a century old in order to justify things, then yes, it is that you want to return things to how they were when those precedents were relevant.
I was not saying that you wanted to take the country back to the 1800s, but that the republicans who feel that, because such tactics were considered to be acceptable, they are acceptable in present day as well.
Because when the Dems flip the table and do it to Trump in the last year of his term - to any nominations at any level- he can say, “See told ya!” ignoring the fact that it wouldn’t even have to be an option if he hadn’t blown up the whole process in the first place.
Something else upthread that was bugging me. “No one present confirmed Dr. Ford’s testimony.” No shit. The only people present were Dr. Ford, Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. You think Judge would roll over on his bro? Not a goddamned chance any of those prep school shits would nark out ol’ Pukey Bart.
Nixon did NOT get fewer popular votes than did his opponent (Nixon got around 32 million while Humphrey got around 31 million)*, of course.
John Mace (and others arguing the same thing) were simply attempting to move the goalposts again: from ‘SCOTUS justices appointed by presidents who got fewer popular votes than did their losing opponents’ to ‘SCOTUS justices appointed by presidents who got fewer than 50% of popular votes.’
*United States presidential election of 1968 | Nixon, Humphrey, Wallace & Issues | Britannica
I certainly didn’t say that. I simply pointed out that Fiveyearlurker was wrong and how. You imagined the above part.
Ok mods, asked and answered. Shut this shit down.
Agreed. This has basically become a gloat-fest for supporters of men credibly accused of sexual assault.
Yes, it’s pretty clear to me that McConnell is right. I think, going forward, SCOTUS justices will only get appointed when the Presidency and Senate are controlled by the same party. Just look at the rage against Manchin for exercising a little independent thought and judgement. Base voters won’t support party leadership if they give in to an opposing-party president on SCOTUS.
PJ Smyth and Leland Keyser were both alleged to have been at the house party. Neither of them recall it. Keyser said she can’t recall ever having gone to any party with Kavanaugh.
Yes, this is one of the obviously-bad arguments being used in support of Kavanaugh’s supposed innocence.
Here’s another:
This is clearly nonsense. It requires the adherent to believe that the accuser ‘made up’ a story about an attack, so as to smear a SCOTUS nominee, two years before the attacker was nominated. In other words, it requires the adherent to believe that Christine Blasey Ford had the power of precognition—a supernatural ability to know that Trump would nominate Kavanaugh, years before that actually occurred.
In similar fashion the entire right-wing article-of-faith that Ford made it all up to smear Kavanaugh depends on an ability to ignore the fact that Ford contacted her Congressional representative (Anna Eshoo) three days before Trump announced his nomination. Again, the argument relies on a belief that Ford has supernatural powers of clairvoyance.
Uh…what month do you think this is, right now?
(my emphasis)
Now they certainly would.
I don’t know how you can still say that he;s credibly accused, when every single piece of evidence that’s come out since the accusation by Ford points to it never having happened. You are seriously undermining your own cause by continuing to claim this, and giving ammunition to those who would dismiss other, genuinely credible, claims. This is crying wolf, nothing more, and it will backfire.
No need to wonder. Republicans stole a supreme court seat from Merrick Garland.