ADVERTISEMENT

Kavanaugh

Tit all the tats you want, but the Garland obstruction was a nuclear blast that outshone all previous Senatorial obstruction of judicial candidates combined. The Senate GOP wanted to prevent Obama from filling the seat, not only in the hopes that a Republican president would fill it instead, but also that the open seat would help increase conservative turnout in November. But they didn't want to have to go on the record and reject a supremely qualified individual. So they did the most cowardly, despicable alternative they could find: they simply refused to do the jobs the voters had elected them to do. In a hundred years, when someone writes The Decline and Fall of the United States Senate, the Garland nomination will get its own chapter.
That’s how the tit for tat game works - every tit (or tat) is considered the biggest tit (or tat) ever by the other side. The Garland situation certainly was a big tit (and I wasn’t in favor of it and would have preferred an up or down vote, as always), but that doesn’t mean the previous tits (or tats) weren’t tits or that each of those weren’t considered quite big too

When objective analysts discuss the deterioration of civility in the judicial nomination process they never blame one side for it. When conservatives / Republicans discuss it here they don’t blame Democrats alone for it. When liberals / Democrats here discuss it, they generally blame Republicans alone. Seems they can only see the last tit (or tat) and, by God, that tit is the biggest tit in the history of tits and no other tits deserve mention ever again. Or tat(s) . . .
 
Last edited:
It's fascinating to see you complaining about sanctimoniousness in the same thread as your clamoring for Senator Feinstein's censure. :rolleyes:
You didn’t notice the “if” or that I changed my mind when additional information was revealed.
 
If that was your drive over there to the left, better take a mulligan.
My drives are generally likely to go left. My good shots usually draw and my bad shots usually hook. The result is I’m usually playing to the left of the others in my group. I guess that could make me the moonbat of my foursome. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing and stollcpa
In a hundred years, when someone writes The Decline and Fall of the United States Senate, the Garland nomination will get its own chapter.

That’s an interesting point. The chapters in such a book would be a great thread.

I think your head has exploded about the Garland nomination. The problem isn’t who the justices are, the problem is how SCOTUS has evolved the Constitution over the years and how SCOTUS has evolved its role. This evolutionary progression is why the ideologues now take such an interest about who sits on the court. The influence of a particular jurist is always temporary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
That’s how the tit for tat game works - every tit (or tat) is considered the biggest tit (or tat) ever by the other side. The Garland situation certainly was a big tit (and I wasn’t in favor of it and would have preferred an up or down vote, as always), but that doesn’t mean the previous tits (or tats) weren’t tits or that each of those weren’t considered quite big too

When objective analysts discuss the deterioration of civility in the judicial nomination process they never blame one side for it. When conservatives / Republicans discuss it here they don’t blame Democrats alone for it. When liberals / Democrats here discuss it, they generally blame Republicans alone. Seems they can only see the last tit (or tat) and, by God, that tit is the biggest tit in the history of tits and no other tits deserve mention ever again. Or tat(s) . . .
There is an objective difference. Up until Garland, Congress never stalled a Supreme Court nomination until their party took over the presidency. Think about it, Aloha. That is the new precedent or "tit or tat" in your terminology. No new precedent is required now for one party that can maintain control of the Senate to fill the SC over time with 9 justices of their choosing. That what you want for America?
 
That’s an interesting point. The chapters in such a book would be a great thread.

I think your head has exploded about the Garland nomination. The problem isn’t who the justices are, the problem is how SCOTUS has evolved the Constitution over the years and how SCOTUS has evolved its role. This evolutionary progression is why the ideologues now take such an interest about who sits on the court. The influence of a particular jurist is always temporary.

So, are you officially off your “nuance” kick and onto “exploding heads” now? Is this a temporary change, or will you eventually use both?
 
There is an objective difference. Up until Garland, Congress never stalled a Supreme Court nomination until their party took over the presidency. Think about it, Aloha. That is the new precedent or "tit or tat" in your terminology. No new precedent is required now for one party that can maintain control of the Senate to fill the SC with 9 justices of their choosing. That what you want for America?
I seriously doubted more than a few (if any) Republican Senators thought Trump was going to win the Presidency, so they were likely only delaying the inevitable. However, they shouldn’t have done it - they should have continued the process and voted. However, the point is that both sides have taken action along the path to where we are which the other side strongly disliked and they used each of these as justification for their next step. This is objectively true, but it seems that those on the left here only see the last tit (or tat) and don’t acknowledge the existence of any tits or tats that came before that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
There is an objective difference. Up until Garland, Congress never stalled a Supreme Court nomination until their party took over the presidency. Think about it, Aloha. That is the new precedent or "tit or tat" in your terminology. No new precedent is required now for one party that can maintain control of the Senate to fill the SC over time with 9 justices of their choosing. That what you want for America?

Are you suggesting Garland’s non-vote is a justification for the obstreperous conduct of several democratic senators in the Kavanaugh hearing?
 
So, are you officially off your “nuance” kick and onto “exploding heads” now? Is this a temporary change, or will you eventually use both?

Do you know you are the easiest poster to troll on the board? A trollee always responds with nonsense. Second place isn’t close.
 
I seriously doubted more than a few (if any) Republican Senators thought Trump was going to win the Presidency, so they were likely only delaying the inevitable. However, they shouldn’t have done it - they should have continued the process and voted. However, the point is that both sides have taken action along the path to where we are which the other side strongly disliked and they used each of these as justification for their next step. This is objectively true, but it seems that those on the left here only see the last tit (or tat) and don’t acknowledge the existence of any tits or tats that came before that one.
No one disagrees with you that there was a progression of tits for tats. That's clearly an irrational factor in divisive politics.

You seem to refuse to want to accept that the Garland tit entered a whole new realm, in addition to being a continuation of the progression. Whereas before the adversaries were stretching the limits, Garland stretched it past the breaking point. Delay was a norm but not delaying until a change of Presidents.

It doesn't matter who expected whom to win. The Republicans used the SC vacancy as a campaign tool and conceivably swayed the election with it. That's even more cynical than the replacing the SC justice. That can lead not only to delaying SC appointments but delaying any and all congressional and executive actions until after the next election, thereby stymieing all actions forever. That's the reductio ad absurdum on crossing the Garland red line.

THe concept of a red line has a meaning and Garland crossed a red line, whether your progression led to that or not.
 
Are you suggesting Garland’s non-vote is a justification for the obstreperous conduct of several democratic senators in the Kavanaugh hearing?
No, that falls under Aloha's tit-for-tat progression. Technically, that would be a regression at this point, back across the Garland red line to delaying tactics. Back from the Republicans' Garland insanity to Aloha's tit-for-tat semblance of sanity. Kudos to the Dems for going in the direction of sanity. It's always relative.

Thanks for the question. Always glad to help clarify your confusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meridian
Well now that the accuser has identified herself we don’t need any more information. A professor in Palo Alto University in California says it all.
 
Well now that the accuser has identified herself we don’t need any more information. A professor in Palo Alto University in California says it all.
professor
Palo Alto University
California
woman
Democrat

Which one is the disqualifier?
 
  • Like
Reactions: T.M.P.
professor
Palo Alto University
California
woman
Democrat

Which one is the disqualifier?

All of the above. Strong liberal confident women and she waits until last second to be a hero.

Zeke will soon have a friend join in as an accuser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
Today, this is a damning account. In an earlier time, I'm not sure it would be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ffdd01bc4c86
It seems pretty obvious to me that Kavanaugh is a liar. It is also interesting that the other guy involved is Mark Judge. The guy wrote a book about being a teenage alcoholic.
“With a touch of dark humor, Mark Judge takes the reader on a 12-step journey through his experience as a teenage alcoholic and the revelations that led to his recovery. This coming-of-age memoir is presented from the perspective of an ‘ordinary’ kid who grew up in a small town outside Washington, D.C., attended Catholic school, and experimented with alcohol in a fairly typical way. What is atypical is where the experimentation led. While his drunken acts first appear as little more than adolescent antics and harmless pranks, it slowly becomes apparent that there is a serious problem lurking behind the laughs and half-racks. After a series of events leads him into depression, humiliation, and confusion, Judge discovers both Alcoholics Anonymous and Milan Recovery, launching the narrative into a history of the programs and their respective pros and cons, the physiological roots of alcoholism, and the various misnomers related to the disease. In relating his experiences, Judge relies on his skills as a journalist to track the causes of addiction and the effectiveness of traditional recovery techniques while maintaining a deeply personal, though often cynical, tone.”​
In another article about the era Judge writes:
The article describes a scene at the third week of “beach week,” saying, “We had a ‘T & A’ party and invited the girls from Trinity and St. Anne’s. We’d lie about having a serious chaperone, and they would then lie to their chaperones about it…Chris and I did a line of cocaine in the car.” It describes discussions about hookers and females’ attributes. “We talk and drank, and the party got louder and wilder. People paired off, Mueller and Walsh were wrestling with each other in a fight over the music, and a bottle got broken,” it continues.​
 
If Trump had nominated Amy Coney Barrett the Dems would haul out a man to say in high school Amy’s friends held him down, stuffed a cloth in his mouth so he couldn’t scream and Amy raped him.
 
The next play from the democrat playbook is another childhood friend will come out and confirm the girl talked about the incident afterwards.
The woman already confirmed that she talked about it with her therapist in 2012. Therapist provided notes. Just what is so hard to believe about this allegation really?
 
If Trump had nominated Amy Coney Barrett the Dems would haul out a man to say in high school Amy’s friends held him down, stuffed a cloth in his mouth so he couldn’t scream and Amy raped him.
You are lurching off into fantasy. Why not just deal with the situation as it is? 17 year old Kavanaugh was hanging out with his alcoholic druggy friend Mark Judge and, under the influence of alcohol, tried to force himself on teenage girl. Drunken and drugged Judge jumped on K and the girl and the girl escaped...lucky for everyone. The situation doesn't sound in the least surprising. K can't possibly do the decent thing and admit it happened and apologize. So now K's supporters are going to make him and themselves into the victims. We live in a very f***ed up society.
 
You are lurching off into fantasy. Why not just deal with the situation as it is? 17 year old Kavanaugh was hanging out with his alcoholic druggy friend Mark Judge and, under the influence of alcohol, tried to force himself on teenage girl. Drunken and drugged Judge jumped on K and the girl and the girl escaped...lucky for everyone. The situation doesn't sound in the least surprising. K can't possibly do the decent thing and admit it happened and apologize. So now K's supporters are going to make him and themselves into the victims. We live in a very f***ed up society.

Do you believe the Clinton accusers?
 
K can't possibly do the decent thing and admit it happened and apologize

Assuming it happened, does he even remember the events of the evening? I had plenty of blacked out nights from 16 - 23 where I couldn't tell you where we ended up or who we were with.

If he did remember and apologized, would that make you feel differently?
 
Assuming it happened, does he even remember the events of the evening? I had plenty of blacked out nights from 16 - 23 where I couldn't tell you where we ended up or who we were with.

If he did remember and apologized, would that make you feel differently?

Did he say he couldn't remember because he was black-out drunk?
 
Assuming it happened, does he even remember the events of the evening? I had plenty of blacked out nights from 16 - 23 where I couldn't tell you where we ended up or who we were with.

If he did remember and apologized, would that make you feel differently?
I would oppose his nomination to the court even if there were no such allegations. These questions are not decision relevant for me. The question is whether they are relevant for the proponents. If Kavanaugh were a nominee put forward by the Democrats and was somebody with a record I approved these allegations would make me think the Democrats should find someone else. If he were to admit what happened and apologize that might matter to me.
 
If Kavanaugh were a nominee put forward by the Democrats and was somebody with a record I approved these allegations would make me think the Democrats should find someone else. If he were to admit what happened and apologize that might matter to me.
At this point in time, there's nothing but downside to doing the right thing as you describe. Until that changes, nothing will change.
 
Today, this is a damning account. In an earlier time, I'm not sure it would be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ffdd01bc4c86

This is a skeptical quote:

In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

I could be reading too much into this, but this sounds off to me. In 2012, she was worried about him becoming a SCOTUS nominee?
 
At this point in time, there's nothing but downside to doing the right thing as you describe. Until that changes, nothing will change.
Actually, a great deal is changing I think. The asshattery and downright criminality that was tolerated when we were kids won't be tolerated now. Think about how much sexual assault and abuse was routinely covered up in the past...that ain't going to cut it now. On the flip side a great deal of behavior that was regarded as inappropriate or even illegal in the past is now being made acceptable. The basic trend seems to be that consenting parties today are much freer to do stuff...non-consensual transgressions are much less acceptable.
 
I have no idea. Just replied in regards to iu's statements.

Well, since you didn't see it, he said, "I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time."

See how different that is than, "Boy, I was black-out drunk at some parties back then, so I don't remember that at all"?
 
I would oppose his nomination to the court even if there were no such allegations. These questions are not decision relevant for me. The question is whether they are relevant for the proponents. If Kavanaugh were a nominee put forward by the Democrats and was somebody with a record I approved these allegations would make me think the Democrats should find someone else. If he were to admit what happened and apologize that might matter to me.
The possibility that she’s lying or has a false memory just aren’t possible in your mind?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT