The hurry is to get the full Senate vote done before the election.
Understood. None of us are in any position to assess that likelihood.
Cite?
So you are flipping on this too? You said investigate not two posts ago.
What’s wrong with waiting until the lame-duck period? The votes count the same. ETA: Even if we buy into the political need to get it done while there’s still a guaranteed GOP Senate majority, that still works.
I’m not flipping on shit. I said IDGAF if someone wants to investigate. I think it’s redundant and silly, but knock yourselves out. What I don’t want is for it to delay the vote. That’s what I said before too.
Before the SCOTUS term starts in October.
Can’t delay the vote for an investigation… because reasons! Just an allegation of sexual assault. No big deal, certainly not worth inconveniencing anyone over. :rolleyes:
The next SCOTUS term starts in October.
That’s a ridiculous characterization of what people are saying. I absolutely do not accept that we have to stop everything anytime an anonymous person alleges sexual assault from 35 years ago, during High School. If you have a problem with the process, you need to take it up with Senator Feinstein. She was the gatekeeper who kept the gate shut.
Be careful what you wish for, because this is something that’s easy to repeat whenever someone needs to delay something. Very little happens in government that has to happen “without delay”.
I’ve criticized Feinstein numerous times in this thread. Her mistake doesn’t absolve the committee from their responsibilities.
Be careful what I wish for? Are you fucking kidding me? I’d be ecstatic if the government and powerful institutions took even 25% of sexual assault allegations seriously. What amazing progress that would be! And if that seriousness might cause us to spend some extra time on a few false allegations…? Of course I’d accept that trade off! Wouldn’t you?
In case I haven’t made it clear yet, our society is still extremely fucked up in how we treat sexual assault allegations and victims. This is an opportunity to try and take a tiny step forward. Even if Feinstein fucked it up from her end. We can still, as a country, do a good thing, and make absolutely sure we’re not seating an attempted rapist on the SC.
Or we can do nothing because of politics, and because most in power (and many of their supporters, as we’re seeing in this thread) really don’t give a fuck about trying to make society better with regards to sexual assault.
There’s an excluded middle here between “nothing” and delaying the vote. We can proceed with the vote, and investigate once evidence comes to light. If we find that he really did something egregious, he can be impeached.
Some of us think it’s more important that we ensure we don’t seat an attempted rapist on the SC than fulfilling some bullshit political deadline. The SCOTUS can obviously function 1 justice short for a few months.
She’s the ranking member of the minority party on the Committee. “The Committee” isn’t some entity that exists completely apart from her. But the idea that “there is no reason” to disregard this particular allegation is nonsense. The reasons have been brought up in this thread many times. You may not like the reasons, but they are actually part of our legal system, and for good, well, reason.
I think you’d be less than ecstatic once you started seeing the gears of government grinding to a halt every time an anonymous person claimed sexual assault from 35 years ago, including times when the alleged perp was a minor. Don’t think for a minute that the crazies wouldn’t start doing this sort of thing a lot if the precedent is set.
Give us names, dates, specific charges, and a collaborating witness or two if you want there to be any consideration that something needs to happen wrt events from 35 years ago.
You’ve treated her with kid gloves in this thread. “Her mistake”? Like it was just an accident, or an error in judgement, rather than a deliberate decision to let her politics take priority over addressing concerns over sexual assault? You also managed to muster that you “think she handled it pretty poorly” and “The Democrats who knew about it (and maybe Feinstein in particular) handled this allegation very poorly”. That’s the extent of your Feinstein criticism that I can find. Pretty mild stuff there.
What the fuck are you talking about? The Senate decides the process for vetting SCOTUS justices. There’s nothing in this process that’s “actually part of our legal system” that prevents the Senate from investigation this. There’s nothing stopping them from delaying a vote and actually investigating this except for politics.
The crazies have been doing this bullshit for years. This is nothing new. Journalists know how to treat the crazy bullshit allegations vs the credible ones. And it wouldn’t be at all hard for the Senate to figure that out either, as long as they actually devoted some time and effort to it. Nothing would change except that the government might actually start treating allegations seriously.
What you can find is pretty fucking pathetic. Ten minutes ago you replied to a post in which I explicitly stated “Feinstein fucked it up”.
This is equivalent, pretty much directly, to a SCOTUS nominee in the 1960s having an allegation that they participated in a lynching (or attempted lynching) as a student 30 years prior. Putting such a nominee on the court without an investigation to determine whether the allegation was true or not would have been terribly damaging to the country. This moment, with regards to sexual assault and harassment, is equivalent to the aftermath of Jim Crow – finally, the country is starting to wake up and actually take these terrible injustices seriously. But only just starting. Seating an alleged attempted rapist on the SC without fully investigating these allegations would be terribly damaging to the country, especially at this moment. And the only thing preventing such an investigation is inertia and politics.
I have little hope that the Senate will do the right thing on this. But I’m sure as fuck going to advocate that they ought to.
That post said “if Feinstein fucked it up”. I didn’t consider the hypothetical to be actual criticism.
It wasn’t a hypothetical in context. “If” was obviously the “though” form of “if” in that sentence. But if you need me to feed you like a baby bird, Feinstein fucked it up. Majorly.