- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,323
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Does that mean he'll be equally justified when he does compromise for the GOP who supported him?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Republicans never launched a search and destroy smear campaign against Bader, Sotomayor, or Kagan who never compromise for conservatives on court decisions. So Kavanaugh will be more justified in not compromising for the other side since he was the target of a vicious smear.
I sincerely hop that if the Senate flips next month, the new leadership will consider doing that, rather than look to exploit the power that the other side grabbed for itself.
Why? The Dems regularly refuse to engage in GOP tactics because they try and take the higher moral ground, and where exactly has it got them? There's only so many times people engaged in a street fight can try and insist on fair play, before they realize that landing on their behind is not getting them anywhere.
Trump has made the political situation into an existential crisis for America. Do you really think that playing nice and trying to restore decorum is going to achieve anything in the face of a conservative party that has jettisoned even the pretense of morality or ethical behaviour?
We are in agreement.
Even though I disagree with the pro-life position, I can understand their reasoning.
Well, this is what they paid their thirty pieces of silver for back in the '70s... Matthew 16:26, eh?
I don't bel i eve it, I dont think there is enough to it.Well, I don't consider Dr. Ford's allegation "spurious," but it's unsubstantiated and unprovable.
The fact that it took Flake's threat to torpedo the nomination just to get it investigated demonstrates how seriously it wasn't taken.[
Nothing
We are in agreement againmust stand in the way of the powerful becoming more powerful.
He's a conservative. He doesn't have to compromise to be who he is.Does that mean he'll be equally justified when he does compromise for the GOP who supported him?
He's a conservative. He doesn't have to compromise to be who he is.
He's a judge, first and foremost. Dedicated to the impartial application of the law.
Or is he?
Impartiality is a myth. Otherwise, supreme court appointments wouldn't be such a contentious issue.
perhaps... but don't our congresscritters owe it to us to at least go through the motions?
They just did. And those motions became quite a circus thanks to all the accusations that started becoming more ridiculous as the dems became more and more desperate at the end.
Noting that it was Senator Flake's threat to withhold his crucial vote that inspired the "motions" of an investigation into attempted rape in the first place.
Then the dems got what they said they wanted. So why are they still so resentful about it?
probably because they saw is as a half-hearted dog and pony show.
I must admit, I'm still curious as to why Donald's FBI didn't question the accuser or the accused... no competent investigator lets others do the important work for them...
Because they both had already been questioned at length by the Senate. If the Senators had questions, they asked them. It was the witnesses the dems were so concerned about having their voices heard. That was the whole point of doing the FBI investigation.
As I said -- no competent investigator lets others do their work for them... and the key to any interrogation is repetition -- getting the witness (or suspect) to repeat their story as many times as possible, to see if they trip up on details.
Again, any competent investigator knows this. They wouldn't let the politicians do their job for them... under normal circumstances.
perhaps... but don't our congresscritters owe it to us to at least go through the motions?
They just did. And those motions became quite a circus thanks to all the accusations that started becoming more ridiculous as the dems became more and more desperate at the end.
The different standards of investigation called for by republicans should not go unnoticed. They wanted none for one of their own, were willing to settle for a rush job.
Not too long ago they felt the need to investigate their political enemies almost limitlessnessly and endlessly, sometimes for decades at a time.
They have just elected a partisan hack to sit on the the supreme court, a man who promised that "what comes around goes around" if he were confirmed. They did so after removing the filibusterer from the deliberations and denying a even a single sham hearing on a presidential nominee for almost a year.
They are partisan hacks at their finest and it has done nothing but erode any semblance of the unbiased court.
The supreme court now works for Donald Trump and the republican majority, and it's newest member is ready and able to protect the president from any investigations.
The US government, already elected by minority vote via the electoral college, the gerrymandered congress, and senators from the minority population states are now taking control of the courts by nearly party line vote.
In terms of being a "representative" democracy the government is practically illegitimate.
Well, now that some on the right are calling for an investigation of Dr. Ford for allegedly lying before Congress and defaming the name of Kavanaugh, I suspect that, should that ever gain traction, we'll see what a real investigation looks like -- a year or two, a couple of million dollars, and interviews with everyone who ever spoke more than six words to Dr. Ford, right down to little Timmy McCracken, who sat two seats behind her back in third grade.
On thing to keep in mind is that while Kavanaugh is a conservative, he is also a Roman Catholic. To the extent (if any) that he may be biased by his religious views he would be in agreement with "the base" on issues like abortion and, perhaps, gay marriage. On the other hand, on other issues important to the Christian Right, he may disappoint them. The death penalty, which the RC church opposes, may be an example.He's a judge, first and foremost. Dedicated to the impartial application of the law.
Or is he?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?