Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice Kennedy Retiring

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    So now it being reported that this lady family had a grudge against the Kavanaugh mom.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ourt-case.html

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by C0|dB|00ded View Post

      The likely scenario was a high school house party where everybody was smashed or getting smashed and Kavanaugh and this girl had been flirting. When Kavanaugh got physical (by physical I mean moved to kiss, hug, grope, whatever...) Christine decided she wasn't interested and resisted. Of course Kavanaugh persisted like every other high school boy will do, loaded with a hardon and a six pack - TO A POINT. Where is that point? Obviously it's well short of forced penetration. But if he pushes her against the wall, on the bed, behind a door, then starts mashing his face against hers while grabbing for something, anything soft... *earmuffs kids* well... I hate to say it but, this was kinda common when I was growing up. Either the girl would eventually relent or just say get the **** off me. If you didn't get up after that point you had likely crossed the line.
      I'm sure a C grade point average was also "kinda common" when you were growing up. Doesn't mean any of those folks should be a Supreme Court justice.

      The behavior you are describing is disgusting, but I agree that it was (all too) common. It should still prevent someone from being a Supreme Court justice. Now, you may not believe the story, which is an entirely different question. But if you believe it and just say "that's common," it's really a sad state of affairs.

      Comment


      • C0|dB|00ded
        C0|dB|00ded commented
        Editing a comment
        You're expecting a fumbling, bumbling male teenager to act perfectly appropriate when he is in the presence of ***** (perhaps for the very first time) AND high on beer? You're expecting a lot brother. Rape is inexcusable, but some offensive pressure is totally expected. This is a mating urge we are talking about here. This isn't two people discussing baseball scores.


        T


        ...

    • #63
      Originally posted by jdshock View Post

      I'm sure a C grade point average was also "kinda common" when you were growing up. Doesn't mean any of those folks should be a Supreme Court justice.

      The behavior you are describing is disgusting, but I agree that it was (all too) common. It should still prevent someone from being a Supreme Court justice. Now, you may not believe the story, which is an entirely different question. But if you believe it and just say "that's common," it's really a sad state of affairs.
      Bookmarked. We now know where you draw the line. Glad to know that you will never support the confirmation of a Supreme Court judge, be it liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat, based on unsubstantiated, and impossible to prove accusations from the nominees youth.

      I guess we will never get another justice confirmed. Ever.
      There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.

      Comment


      • #64
        Originally posted by MoValley John View Post

        Bookmarked. We now know where you draw the line. Glad to know that you will never support the confirmation of a Supreme Court judge, be it liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat, based on unsubstantiated, and impossible to prove accusations from the nominees youth.

        I guess we will never get another justice confirmed. Ever.
        Thanks for joining the conversation, but at least be honest about what I have and have not said. In case you missed it, I've made clear a couple of times that I don't know what to think about these accusations. Like I said before, plenty of reasons to oppose confirmation in this particular instance. I specifically said this is not the thing that is persuading me.

        But yeah, if true, this behavior would certainly be on the wrong side of the line. Who of us here hasn't held a woman down, put our hand over their mouth, and attempted to get their clothes off as they tried to escape? Oh wait... me. I haven't. Hopefully most of you haven't either. And anyone who has? They shouldn't be a Supreme Court justice. Even if it is common.

        Now, it might not be true. I keep saying that. Cold is the only one here (so far, unless you're joining the bandwagon) who seems to think this is everyday behavior. People who think it isn't true are one thing. Or, you know, as I said "an entirely different question." What Cold has done is defend the actions, regardless of whether they occurred.

        Comment


        • ShockCrazy
          ShockCrazy commented
          Editing a comment
          shockfan89_ You really think Kavanaugh is an excellent nominee??? Even McConnell thinks Kavanaugh was a bad nominee. He's a hyper partisan nominee who has been deliberately misleading every time he has testified before the Senate Judicial Committee. Also you think it's weird she couldn't remember random unrelated details after 30 years, but could quite vividly remember the details of the actual experience that she seemed to find quite traumatic? I mean that doesn't seem that unlikely to me.

          Kinda tinfoily but I wonder if the Dems have the ability to kill this nom dead? There have been too many other lines of questioning that weren't resolved, specifically Kamala Harris's questions regarding the Russia investigation or Feintstein saying there is more people don't know, I would guess related to Kozinski and what Kavanaugh knew and when. I wonder if they are slow walking it and playing McConnell ball to push another nom past midterms. Which I would find kind of amusing and ironic.

        • jdshock
          jdshock commented
          Editing a comment
          ShockCrazy (and for anyone else who is interested) - The Washington Post had a pretty good article this morning discussing memory issues surrounding traumatic events: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...eres-her-take/

        • shockfan89_
          shockfan89_ commented
          Editing a comment
          Kavanaugh is an excellent nominee. He wasn't my first choice but there has been nothing even remotely questionable raised and he has years and years of cases he has presided over to support this. Every SCOTUS nominee has been intentionally vague at points in their confirmation hearings. I think some of your concern with Kavanaugh is based on the terrible behavior displayed by the democrats on the committee. Even Ginsburg, who is one of the most partisan people on the SCOTUS (and was confirmed 96-3) agrees the democrats behavior was sad.

          I did read the WaPo article on recall and they make some nice vague points to defend Ford, but every person I have talked to has relived every detail of the day of their assault and even though they try to forget random, unrelated details they can't. A lot of times it is those random, unrelated things they now see in everyday interactions that trigger the dreadful memories they want to avoid (a house that looks the same, same model of car they rode in to the party, music that was playing at the time, a cologne or another smell). VERY unlikely she wouldn't know where she was or why she was there or who the house belonged to, and the fact that a 15 year old girl never told her best friend defies all logic. 15 year old girls tell their best friends when they buy a new shade of lip gloss and think it is major news.

          If I was Trump I would actually pull Kavanough today and put up the youngest, most politically biased female on his list and force it through next week with almost no chance of vetting. You pull a bogus political stunt, I will follow it with one. That would be hilarious and what the democrats deserve for this fake story that everyone knows there is no possible way to prove.
          Last edited by shockfan89_; September 18th, 2018, 11:47 AM.

      • #65
        Please, on the “nothing to gain” angle on Ford.

        In the short-term, she might suffer some (unfortunate) character assassination from certain BSC factions on the right, but long-term this lady will be lionized and sainted by the left, and regardless of the Kavanaugh outcome her story will be treated as scientific fact to the degree that we hold the world to be round by that same subset, who just so happen to also own and shape popular opinion via the mainstream media.

        So yeah... please.
        There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
        - Ernest Hemingway

        Comment


        • #66
          There are 24 other candidates on the list, and Heritage has vetted even more after that list is exhausted. Ultimately Kavanaugh or no Kavanaugh won't matter that much. But Trump should make sure that each new one put forward is slightly more conservative than the last.
          Kung Wu say: "If Chuck Norris had a coach, his name would be Gregg Marshall."

          Comment


          • Kung Wu
            Kung Wu commented
            Editing a comment
            Definitely needs to go more conservative, if the Dems pull this b.s. off.

          • shockfan89_
            shockfan89_ commented
            Editing a comment
            The Biden rule in 1992! Bush (Sr) was running for re-election in 1992 and Democrats would not have allowed him to nominate a replacement until after the 92 election. Clinton (the rapist, not the Russian collusion one) nominated Ginsburg after the election and she was confirmed in 1993.

            Garland was even treated better than this instance because Obama nominated him at the end of his term. Obama was not up for re-election, no matter what happened in Nov of 2016, Obama was not going to be President so why not let the new President choose their justice? Bush (Sr) should have absolutely been able to nominate a replacement for White in 1992 since he was up for re-election.

            I will play your game. Name one time when hearings were held on a SCOTUS nominated by an outgoing President (no chance for re-election) when the opposing party controlled the Senate? It has never happened. The fact that Obama even nominated Garland is breaking from the historical norm (because he just wanted his guy and refused to follow protocol). McConnell did the only honorable thing by not holding hearings and allowing the new POTUS to provide the rightful nomination.
            Last edited by shockfan89_; September 18th, 2018, 02:07 PM.

          • ShockCrazy
            ShockCrazy commented
            Editing a comment
            The Biden rule IS NOT a thing. It was something he floated and was never done. It has never been a thing until the Republicans did it. White did not resign until after the election that was HIS choice. And also if you want to float the stupid ass Biden rule, why don't you mention the complete rule, he mentioned the president should wait OR nominate a moderate... You know like... Obama did. And Biden himself said it was mostly a suggestion to give a nod to the public not a hard and fast rule.

            There are so many cases of this actually happening. Eisenhower seated 3 in his second term with a Dem congress. Ford seated one with a Dem congress during the ultimate lame duck presidency(he didn't actually want to run after the partial term).

            Let's be clear Obama was elected to a four year term, not 3 and a half or whatever you want to play. When did his term for SCOTUS appointments end if it was sooner? A year? Two? If we are arbitrarily moving how government works lets just throw the whole thing in the trash. If Dems take back the Senate and House this year should they refuse to hear any Trump appointments "because the people have spoken"? And how is not holding hearings correct, why does the Majority leader of the Senate's stance more important than the president's? If he wanted to do the right thing, why not bring it to the floor and let the majority of the Senate reject the nom and give the people an actual proxy say? Here's a hint: Merrick Garland would have been approved with overwhelming support. Instead McConnell unilaterally usurped the powers of the president.

        • #67
          Originally posted by jdshock View Post

          Thanks for joining the conversation, but at least be honest about what I have and have not said. In case you missed it, I've made clear a couple of times that I don't know what to think about these accusations. Like I said before, plenty of reasons to oppose confirmation in this particular instance. I specifically said this is not the thing that is persuading me.

          But yeah, if true, this behavior would certainly be on the wrong side of the line. Who of us here hasn't held a woman down, put our hand over their mouth, and attempted to get their clothes off as they tried to escape? Oh wait... me. I haven't. Hopefully most of you haven't either. And anyone who has? They shouldn't be a Supreme Court justice. Even if it is common.

          Now, it might not be true. I keep saying that. Cold is the only one here (so far, unless you're joining the bandwagon) who seems to think this is everyday behavior. People who think it isn't true are one thing. Or, you know, as I said "an entirely different question." What Cold has done is defend the actions, regardless of whether they occurred.
          I don’t condone the purported behavior, I find your response to cold disingenuous and an opinion you wouldn't hold had HRC won the election and the accusations been that lobbed at one of her appointees.

          My only opinion is that this is accusation goes so far back that it almost certainly won't be verified. You need much more than this to detail or delay confirmation, and if we are going to delay confirmations on these accusations, well, prepare for this to happen in every confirmation from this point forward. The accusation was given to the Dems long ago, they had plenty of time (and would have) to verify if possible.
          There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.

          Comment


          • jdshock
            jdshock commented
            Editing a comment
            Okay. I don't know what to tell you. I think I'd probably have the same response had it been a dem.

            As for the second part - That is a question for the republican senators asking for a delay on the vote. There isn't a lot that dems can do without the majority. There almost certainly wasn't a timing choice that would've made everyone happy. If Feinstein gave it out a long time ago, everyone would be mad at her for breaking the confidentiality stuff. If Feinstein went public with it instead of just giving it to the FBI, people would've been mad at her. The path they chose was also not ideal. But I don't know that there is a set standard for how much evidence is enough to justify delaying a confirmation hearing. Garland never got one, right? Check out my prior post. My prediction is that Republicans buy themselves a few weeks, act like they investigated it, and then they ram him through. I could be wrong.
            Last edited by jdshock; September 18th, 2018, 01:26 PM. Reason: Edited - Removed the bit about being cold.

          • Kung Wu
            Kung Wu commented
            Editing a comment
            Response "to" cold (he meant Coldblooded).

        • #68
          I can't believe more of an issue hasn't been made of the fact that Kavanaugh may have illegally consumed alcohol in high school. If, while a teenager, he didn't have the foresight to avoid drinking because it would hurt him politically, I certainly can't consider him to sound of mind as an adult. Moreover, a Supreme Court Justice.
          There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.

          Comment


          • shockfan89_
            shockfan89_ commented
            Editing a comment
            What do you mean may have? This woman said he was highly intoxicated, so it is a documented fact that Kavanaugh was drinking underage.

          • SB Shock
            SB Shock commented
            Editing a comment
            If Kavanaugh had only attended Illinois State.....he get a pass.

        • #69
          By the way, let's stop already putting this off on democrats. Republicans can do whatever they want. If Trump and the Republicans can't get Kavanaugh through, it's because certain Republicans decided he wasn't worth pushing through.

          Comment


          • shockfan89_
            shockfan89_ commented
            Editing a comment
            LOL we already discussed Garland. He should have never been nominated, there was no precedent for it.

            Yes, that is how the process works so Democrats can deny who they don't like. Republicans view people more objectively and understand the sitting President gets to nominate their man/woman and they should be approved in a bi-partisan way. I guess I missed that process here with Kavanaugh. It was NO before he was ever nominated. Since when has the process worked that way?

            Okay fair enough. I guess Liberals are the only ones that can view things one-sided huh?

            I find it hilarious that Democrats take this "my way or you're a racist" approach, but then they expect Republicans to be accommodating and work with them on things.
            Last edited by shockfan89_; September 18th, 2018, 02:35 PM.

          • ShockCrazy
            ShockCrazy commented
            Editing a comment
            And we've covered this before. THERE IS A PRECEDENT. Eisenhower went even further than a nom, he freaking seated a SCOTUS Justice under a recess appointment JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION. An election he participated in no less.

          • shockfan89_
            shockfan89_ commented
            Editing a comment
            I would have been fine with that especially had Obama been up for re-election like Eisenhower was. BUT HE WASN'T. Also, the senate would have rejected Garland in January after the Trump election victory and Republicans maintaning control of the Senate. So what is the difference between that and not holding hearings until after the election so the new President/Senate can nominate and vote to confirm? To me it would have just been disrespectful to Garland for Obama to do a recess appointment and then yank him back off the SCOTUS when Trump was elected.

        • #70
          Originally posted by jdshock View Post
          By the way, let's stop already putting this off on democrats. Republicans can do whatever they want. If Trump and the Republicans can't get Kavanaugh through, it's because certain Republicans decided he wasn't worth pushing through.
          Speak for yourself buddy.

          The bride of Frankenstein had/held this information during public and closed-door testimony, a private meeting with, and a personal phone call to, Kavanaugh. And, oh yeah, the accuser seems to have bleached out all politics on her online profile, including LinkedIn. Nothing fishy here... He's innocent.

          Comment


          • #71
            It is telling how after the Lauer and weinstein stories broke it was a bunch of stories of more and more people exressing how they did it to them too. After this story broke, just the opposite. The person she is accusing, even if it was him, is deffinetly not the person he is now.

            Comment


            • #72
              https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ends-democrat/

              Democrats are two faced. Jd and Crazy need to get off their one sided High Horse.

              Comment


              • #73
                Originally posted by Shockm View Post
                https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ends-democrat/

                Democrats are two faced. Jd and Crazy need to get off their one sided High Horse.
                Remember that time Republicans swore Dems were two faced and the party would never condemn Franken, and he would never step down. I sure do! But sure, Dems never hold anyone accountable.

                Comment


                • MoValley John
                  MoValley John commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I could remember it wrong, but I think plenty of Dems were willing to back up Franken, Franken chose to walk away on his own.

                  FWIW, in my opinion, Franken got shafted. What he did, or was purported to have done, didn't rise to the level of where he should have resigned. Unfortunately for him, his problems came to light right in the middle of the #MeToo movement. The timing killed him. His lack of backbone to fight back also did him in.

              • #74
                https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...k-wolf-vpx.cnn

                OMFG! OMFG! OMFG!

                A prep-school yearbook has been found............................................. ..........

                There are pictures of kegs.

                There is a caption asking, "Do these guys beat their wives?"

                CNN BREAKING NEWS: Georgetown Prep had a "party culture"!!!

                Libtards in full morality crisis meltdown!

                Meanwhile, NYC just legalized child abuse where a parent can now introduce their child to a lifetime of gender dysphoria, and all the top-ranked suicide rate advantages contained therein, by marking an "X" on the child's birth certificate without HIS or HER consent.

                https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-yo...h-certificates

                Knock me over with a ****ing feather.

                Support puncturing healthy, near-term fetus' skulls as a birth control option - CHECK!
                Support a contra-biological, potentially biased gender labeling practice scientifically proven to cause mental illness and increase suicide rates - CHECK!
                Support partying in high school - NEGATORY!!!!!!!!

                You can't make this stuff up. Great entertainment!


                T


                ...

                Comment


                • #75
                  Originally posted by Shockm View Post
                  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ends-democrat/

                  Democrats are two faced. Jd and Crazy need to get off their one sided High Horse.
                  "This is different because ... " I dunno, "the stakes are higher" or some other line of garbage.

                  or

                  "Hey if he's guilty, lets burn him too." Now that there is something important to them on the line.

                  More of the same.
                  Kung Wu say: "If Chuck Norris had a coach, his name would be Gregg Marshall."

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X