And then there were Three....Correction....FIVE...!!

[TuxAme]

You don’t seem to understand what’s going on...

I understand that you've been ignoring my words.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I understand that you've been ignoring my words.

But the accusations might be true...

 

[Sistrin]

Where's the hard evidence?

There is no evidence.

You are dealing with a child mentality here, the repetitive refrain straight from the third grade playground.

 

[TuxAme]

.

 

[TuxAme]

But the accusations might be true...

You're not interested in having a dialogue, so don't speak to me any further.

 

[Basil the Great]

Anonymous claims are next to meaningless, so I do not think that the final two claims will make any difference.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I smell toast....

...oh, is that what that smell is? I was wondering.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You're not interested in having a dialogue, so don't speak to me any further.

So we’re done discussing how neither of us know if the accusations are true or not?

 

[Allandavid]

Or it might not.

I'd be more convinced if the democrats hadn't waited until the last possible moment to unveil all of this. The fact that they delayed as long as they did tells everyone that:

A) this is a politically motivated attack, and
B) they're so unconfident in these claims that they didn't want to give the committee the time to investigate them soon enough to let the vote take place if proven false.

The Democrats “unveiled” nothing...these women are the ones making the claims...

 

[Allandavid]

And again- they might not. And if we assume the confidence level of the senate democrats who sat on these claims for weeks for ourselves, they're probably not.

So, an independent investigation is called for...

 

[Allandavid]

And for the third time, they might not and probably aren't. You're not listening to me, are you?

Irregardless, they can't be proven. The claims are anywhere from 15 to 36 years old. Law enforcement would have a hard enough time making a case if they'd been reported at the time, they can't be expected to build one decades after the fact based on one person's word and four "eyewitnesses" who disagree with their story, or even "eyewitnesses" who back them up. Where's the hard evidence?

How do you know how “hard” it would be for law enforcement, if you don’t conduct an investigation...!?

 

[Allandavid]

There is no evidence.

You are dealing with a child mentality here, the repetitive refrain straight from the third grade playground.

That “refrain” is coming from (now) 5 independent and (as far as we know) unrelated sources. At least 2 of them are highly educated professional women, hardly ‘playground’ mentalities...

 

[Allandavid]

And for the third time, they might not and probably aren't. You're not listening to me, are you?

Irregardless, they can't be proven. The claims are anywhere from 15 to 36 years old. Law enforcement would have a hard enough time making a case if they'd been reported at the time, they can't be expected to build one decades after the fact based on one person's word and four "eyewitnesses" who disagree with their story, or even "eyewitnesses" who back them up. Where's the hard evidence?

Here’s what your leader in the Senate had to say about a series of allegations...

“The daily barrage of allegations of sexual misconduct against Senator Franken are extremely concerning to all of us in the Senate,” the Kentucky Republican said in a statement. “While the Senate Ethics Committee is reviewing these serious allegations, it now appears that Sen. Franken has lost the support of his colleagues, and most importantly, his constituents.

“I do not believe he can effectively serve the people of Minnesota in the U.S. Senate any longer.”

So, without an investigation having been completed, ol’ Mitch thought it completely appropriate to call on a Senator to quit. Should a Supreme Court nominee be held to a lesser standard...?

 

[Nithavela]

So, without an investigation having been completed, ol’ Mitch thought it completely appropriate to call on a Senator to quit. Should a Supreme Court nominee be held to a lesser standard...?

Only if he toes the republican party line.

 

[NotreDame]

I smell toast....

Based on mere numbers?

 

[NotreDame]

Here’s what your leader in the Senate had to say about a series of allegations...

“The daily barrage of allegations of sexual misconduct against Senator Franken are extremely concerning to all of us in the Senate,” the Kentucky Republican said in a statement. “While the Senate Ethics Committee is reviewing these serious allegations, it now appears that Sen. Franken has lost the support of his colleagues, and most importantly, his constituents.

“I do not believe he can effectively serve the people of Minnesota in the U.S. Senate any longer.”

So, without an investigation having been completed, ol’ Mitch thought it completely appropriate to call on a Senator to quit. Should a Supreme Court nominee be held to a lesser standard...?

A few points. First, McConnell said Franken has lost the support of his constituents in Minnesota and fellow Senators, two essential components for an elected office. As a result, McConnell concluded Franken could not serve the people of Minnesota. But Franken was elected, not up for nomination, and only Franken could determine or the electorate of Minnesota would be the arbiters as to whether Franken could serve them.

The Franken example is not applicable to Kavanaugh.

 

[jardiniere]

A few points. First, McConnell said Franken has lost the support of his constituents in Minnesota and fellow Senators, two essential components for an elected office. As a result, McConnell concluded Franken could not serve the people of Minnesota. But Franken was elected, not up for nomination, and only Franken could determine or the electorate of Minnesota would be the arbiters as to whether Franken could serve them.

The Franken example is not applicable to Kavanaugh.

It is, though, since the whole of the US would be "constituents" of any SC justice. And support for Kavanaugh is falling.

(NBC)
"This is the first time in the NBC/WSJ poll — dating back to John Roberts’ nomination in 2005 — that a Supreme Court nominee has been underwater on this confirmation question. (Harriet Miers, whose nomination was ultimately withdrawn, was above water at 27 percent support, 21 percent oppose in the October 2005 survey)."

 

[Allandavid]

A few points. First, McConnell said Franken has lost the support of his constituents in Minnesota and fellow Senators, two essential components for an elected office.

And judging by the direction of recent polls, so has a Kavanaugh...!

As a result, McConnell concluded Franken could not serve the people of Minnesota. But Franken was elected, not up for nomination, and only Franken could determine or the electorate of Minnesota would be the arbiters as to whether Franken could serve them.

The Franken example is not applicable to Kavanaugh.

Quibbling...

 

[Sistrin]

That “refrain” is coming from (now) 5 independent and (as far as we know) unrelated sources. At least 2 of them are highly educated professional women, hardly ‘playground’ mentalities...

The fifth charge has now been completely debunked as false. The 4th, and the letter in question is available online, could have been crafted by a fifth grader and lacks the same specificity as the other allegations combined with being anonymous. The third was made by an idiot who wants the world to believe she repeatedly, in fact ten times, kept attending parties where she knew women were being drugged and gang-raped until, gee, it happened to her. But no, Kavanaugh wasn't one of those who raped her, he was just somewhere in the area. She thinks. The second claim was made by a women who first spent six days consulting with her attorney before deciding yep, it was Kavanaugh in the, well I don't know in what room and no I don't know with what weapon. But I win Clue regardless. The first charge was made by a woman who also can't remember when or where the assault supposedly took place, or again if Kavanaugh was even there for sure.

In addition education is not an automatic reflection of character.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Some more differences are that unlike a Supreme Court Justice, Senators are not appointed for life. And a single senator is very unlike to be able to cause any great change on the political, Constitutional, or legal landscape unless a lot of his friends also support him or her, A Supreme Court Justice can almost singlehandedly “legislate from the bench” if they are an “activist” Judge.

I wonder if a Justice ever “bit the hand that fed him” after being appointed for life…

Sometimes what seems like a good idea (Patriot Act) turns out not to be a good idea (Patriot Act) later on.