It does.
He thinks this is a victory. He thinks that’s great. He thinks he’s won a great victory against some liberal feminazi.
Shodan, it seems you’ve opted for the never-wrong debate style that seems so popular among conservative talking heads.
While this is a step above one-line dismissals and driveby dumps, it’s really just a long-form treatment of the same.
Nothing ceded, nothing learned, nothing changed.
That unyielding self-assurance may win debates in the public arena, but I just find it profoundly disappointing.
Nevertheless, I thank you for responding.
I feel I need to do what I once attempted with old Clothy (may he forever mow his lawn in peace); that is, establish the baseline for what you are willing to acknowledge. Then maybe test the boundaries of a mutual reality we can agree on.
You’re entitled to your assumptions about motive. Other reasons have been explained to you, including very broad concern regarding the allegations made against him.
It still stands that Garland was rejected, without a vote, and NOT for his politics or behavior.
Reality Check 1: Can you see that there is a huge difference there, making this at the very least, a poor fit for a “both-sides” argument?
I’m not missing that you think the opposition to Kavanaugh was purely partisan.
Perhaps what you are missing is the point I was making:
Reality Check 2: Can you acknowledge that there is no inconsistency in holding the belief that no one is entitled to a seat on the supreme court, and also that the rejection of Garland without hearing or vote was wrong?
You may think it weak evidence, but beyond Ford’s accusation there was also her sworn testimony, which is evidence. And beyond Ford’s testimony there was other evidence considered.
Just from memory:
There where two people who confirmed Ford had previously confided to them that she had been assaulted, without naming Kavanaugh. You may consider that weak evidence, but it IS evidence.
The calendar produced by Kavanaugh indicated a get-together for “Brewskis!” around a time that would fit the party described by Ford. You may consider that weak evidence, but it IS evidence.
Comments written on Kavanaugh’s yearbook suggested that in college he was into heavy drinking and sexual conquests. You may consider that weak evidence, but it IS evidence.
Two other women came forward with claims that Kavanaugh had also sexualy assaulted them in college. You may consider that weak evidence, but it IS evidence.
Reality Check 3: Can you acknowledge that, however weak you may consider it, there WAS in fact evidence to support Ford’s claim?
**Reality Check 4:**I get that you want to believe that the committee Dems where a bunch of slimy partisans devoid of values, but is the above an acknowledgement that at least a good many people NOT on the committee where opposed to Kavanaugh because of genuine non-partisan concerns raised by the allegations and inquiry?
Hunky-dory. You like well-qualified conservative justices. Garland was a well-qualified conservative justice. Orrin Hatch even whined about how Obama should pick a “fine man” like Garland instead of the far-left liberal he was obviously going to pick.
(Please refer to Reality Check 6 below for consideration on whether the manner of Kavanaugh’s seating was good for the country.)
To reiterate, what you have acknowledged yet deemed “irrelevant” is that Garland’s rejection WAS purely partisan, as admitted by Mitch McConnell, and not even based on Garland’s own merits or lack thereof. And that Garland was essentially rejected before he was even proposed, only because he was Obama’s pick. And, again, that Garland was denied a hearing and vote.
**Reality Check 5:**Considering that YOU brought Merrick Garland into this argument, to imply that QuickSilver’s “nobody’s entitled to the job” remark was hypocritical and present yet another “both-sides” argument, can you see why addressing the actual circumstances of Garland’s rejection as compared to Kavanaugh’s is NOT at all irrelevant?
No, I’m not arguing that. That would be silly.
But partisan consideration should not be the sum total of a law-maker’s decision on who fills one of the most important positions in the land.
**Reality Check 6:**Can you agree that purely partisan selection or rejection of supreme court justices is bad for the country?
Holy shit. Really?
…
(After reading margin’s)response):
Holy fucking shit!!
That is repugnant, Shodan.
And you came back to make vacuous remarks on the Zimmerman case, but didn’t address this!?
Don’t even bother to respond to my questions until you’ve apologized to margin.
margin, thank you for sharing your experiences here.
I want to say “stay strong”, but you are clearly a far stronger person than I.
Probably one of the nastiest things I’ve ever read on this board.
You really are a special kind of cunt aren’t you Shodan?
Just shameful.
Yeah, Shodan is a piece of shit. He’s proved it so many times over the years. Why anyone, who is not just as big a piece of shit as he is, doesn’t have him on ignore is a fucking mystery or you hate yourself.
I never advocated genocide. You’re just being melodramatic.
I guess you’re still bitter about being owned in that Iran thread.
Hell, Michigan
As best as I can tell they have living residents.
I really hadn’t noticed how much he glories in being a fuckface asshole until the last 3 years or so. Thought he was just your standard pompous middle aged black belt. But the shithead act is so strong nowadays that I’m not surprised to find that it’s a long standing habit.
Ha, the guy without the balls to put his life on the line attacks someone who did?
I’m totally surprised.
Is this the thread where “conservative” Dopers answer questions to help us understand “conservative” thought? If not, would someone kindly open such a thread in IMHO? (I’d do it myself, but with 85 Warnings and counting I’m bending backwards to stay mellow. 
)
One question I’d ask:
What do “conservatives” think about Republican behavior at the Impeachment hearings?
I won’t ask what they think of Trump — many “conservatives” are self-aware enough to know they should pretend to dislike Trump when conversing with sentient beings — but what do they think of GOP Congressmen? The standard line seems to be “Don’t blame me; I voted for Gary Johnson(!)”; but in fact the GOP House and Senate are almost unanimous now in condoning every lie, every crime, and every scummy thing the scumbag does; and trying to outdo each other with scurrilous lies about the Impeachment process.
(Henceforth I will always use quotation marks when discussing American “conservatives.” To write conservative when discussing today’s American “conservative” is like conflating a butterfly with a tse-tse fly.)
If you’ve managed to draw the ire of Drunky Smurf, I think you must hit pause and examine your life… Right?
People with truly ugly souls tend not to look inward.
Christ. What an asshole.
Republicans opposed Garland’s nomination on partisan grounds. Democrats opposed Kavanaugh’s nomination on partisan grounds. The huge difference is that Republicans controlled the Senate and Democrats did not.
I understood your point - it’s just wrong.
If opposing a Justice on partisan grounds is OK, because no one is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court, then it is OK to oppose Kavanaugh on partisan grounds, and also to oppose Garland on partisan grounds. Whether you do it by spreading lies or by not holding hearings is irrelevant.
Well, there was other sworn testimony. Everyone else who Ford named as being at the party declared under penalty of felony that they did not attend such a party, and Keyser said that she did not know Kavanaugh and had never attended any party with him.
Your memory isn’t very good, for one thing.
Evidence against Kavanaugh needs to be about Kavanaugh.
Before it can be determined if it is evidence or not, you would need to cite the entry you mean. What day did it happen? Kavanaugh usually listed those who were at parties and get-togethers - did he do so in the entry you allege?
I don’t think a high school yearbook is evidence of what Kavanaugh was into in college.
I assume you mean Debbie Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. Both have withdrawn their accusations.
Nope, sorry.
Ford made an allegation. Kavanaugh denied it. Ford claimed that four other people were there. All of them denied it. Ford is vague on the details of where or when the alleged incident took place, but it seems to have been sometime during the summer of 1982. Kavanaugh’s calendar/diary, which is contemporaneous, details his movements and make no mention of any such party. Most of the weekends during that period are ruled out, based on events recorded like football camp, attending a pro golf tournament with his father, etc. There comes a point where weak evidence trails off into no evidence. We are well past that point.
I haven’t seen any. I did see a letter signed by 65 of his female friends in high school, attesting to his good character and respect for them in high school. I also saw testimony from 70+ female colleagues and co-workers, all attesting to the same.
I have seen a huge amount of opposition to him on the SDMB, but that boils down to “he’s guilty because he’s a Republican, and even if he’s not guilty, he’s still a Republican so he is guilty of something”.
What you are missing is the important part of the circumstances of both Kavanaugh, and Garland. Both were opposed on purely partisan grounds. Both side do, really, do that. There is no relevant difference.
Given the politicization of the Court that began with Roe v. Wade, continued with Borking, and persists to this day with “emanations and penumbrae” and “living document” and judges legislating from the bench, I don’t think it is avoidable.
But sure - once we all agree that justices should be bound by the actual text, and not read things into the Constitution because they want them to be there rather than because they are, we can go back to non-partisanship. I won’t be holding my breath.
Regards,
Shodan
Wall of lying bullshit is lying bullshit.
I’m going to try to make this ill wind blow some good. I’m going to email the guy who does the veterans’ outreach segment on the local news and find out what I can do to help veterans and especially female veterans.
I’ll ask for a cite, but I’m pretty sure there is none, and so you’re probably just lying, once again, about this case, as you’ve done many times before.
What a weak fucking effort. Ignoring all calls for a cite while telling others they need to cite their assertions is generally not a great debate tactic. Neither is disparaging a woman who has fought for our country by shitting on her mental health – i notice you still haven’t appologized for that.
Still floored by what a smarmy and cowardly loser Shodan is,
Babale.
“No u” would have saved you some typing.
At least you have learned not to ask for cites that you don’t read.
Regards,
Shodan