Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most conservatives don't know why they are supporting Kavanaugh; they have no idea of his policy positions. Two reason they support him:
1. Trump told them to.
2. Liberals don't like him.
Otherwise, why would anyone want another tool of the 1% and corporations on the SCOTUS to rule, once again, against the middle class and the common man?
I don’t want Kavanaugh, per se, on the SCOTUS. I do know his policy positions, as far as I was concerned he was actually dead last of the list of potential picks. No, my motivation is based on:
I want election results respected.
I am still cringing from the senators who implied or actually said the burden of proof is on the accused.
I am livid that sexual abuse has been weaponized.
Moving goal posts drive me crazy.
I am genuinely concerned that if this worked destroying someone’s life will become the norm.
It will negatively impact who will be willing to step up to these jobs in the future.
I don’t think a person in their 50’s should be judged on actions as a teenager, or even early 20’s, if it is contrary their actions as a full fledged adult.
It is concerning to me when the character of a person is based on looking through the lens of today’s sensibilities at actions that happened when cultural norms were different.
- oh, and unlike every chicken politician out there who refuses to admit they feel this way, but I have to admit I didn’t find her story credible. The more I’ve watched this circus the more I become convinced of this.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I think there is a fear narrative being pushed by Democratic Senators that Kavanaugh will be the supreme court by himself. "He will do this....", "He will do that...", "If Kavanaugh has his way, this will happen or that will happen." The last time I checked, there are 8 other justices. Right now, apparently they don't exist. And unless there's some Manchurian Candidate thing going on in the SCOTUS, I think we will be fine.
I think we will do well if there was a SCOTUS that ran from very liberal to very conservative and I think it should be the goal of every administration to have that balance. Again, no human being is impartial and all views should be taken into account from the very liberal to the very conservative as a balance. Trying to stack the courts with all liberal-leaning or all conservative-leaning judges doesn't benefit anyone. The SCOTUS should be the hardest institution to sway one way or the other.
The court has always shifted from liberal to conservative and back again, and that's ok it's how it should and will always work with 9 justices. But we have never experienced having SCOTUS justices hand picked by a group that is entirely funded by the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the US- The Federalist Society, that is new and in my opinion, alarming. Court cases favoring corporations do not usually help the working people of this country, they only help the rich get richer.
I don't know of a time in history where the Senate seated a justice who publicly threatened those who disagree with him, which he did publicly in saying "what goes around comes around"
I'm puzzled as to anyone with even a modicum of intellectual curiosity could evaluate Brett Kavanaugh and find him fit to serve on the Supreme Court, and I say that without even discussing the fact that 87% of his decisions have favored corporations
Presumption of innocence applies to criminal proceedings. And let's be generous and say that Kavanaugh really was the choir boy he claims to be - doesn't perjury matter anymore? How about impartiality of a Supreme Court Justice, Kavanaugh openly stated that 'what goes around comes around' which in my opinion usually comes out of the mouth of a thug who feels threatened, not a candidate for the highest court in this nation.
1) Presumption of innocence applies not only in criminal proceedings, but in how you or I, or anyone else judges a situation. If you've ever had a verbal altercation in your life over an accusation that can't be proved, you should know this. Ergo, you DO know this. Also, he was under oath during the testimony, so set aside your semantics of job interview vs trial. If perjury matters (and it does), then so does presumption of innocence.
2) I keep hearing the term choir boy as a description Kav is playing up. I listened to every word of his testimony, he admitted to drinking in school, therefore not taking advantage of the term. Perhaps he considered himself a bore compared to others, perhaps not. Same for CBF. She paints herself as one way, her yearbook and other stories speak to a promiscuous youth. So for both of them, perspective is key.
3) So we can both agree that perjury DOES matter. There is plenty in CBF's testimony that indicates untruthful statements. For every accusation of perjury against BK, we could throw one up for CBF.
Collins was 100% correct. You cannot abandon presumption of innocence. And without solid corroborating evidence, you cannot find someone guilty. Whether that's at a trial, a job interview, a three ring circus. Whatever you want to call it matters little when it won't change your view of what happened, it won't change the truth, and it won't change the outcome.
The only losers in this entire crapshow are the victims of sexual abuse who will now - yet again - have to weigh the risks of coming forward against the emotional fallout of keeping silent. In this particular instance, I think CBF agreed with DiFi's agenda & condoned an exaggeration about her past to include a wrongful accusation against a guy who maybe represents everything she is against. I don't doubt she was abused (probably several times), I just don't think it was by BK.
Most conservatives don't know why they are supporting Kavanaugh; they have no idea of his policy positions. Two reason they support him:
1. Trump told them to.
2. Liberals don't like him.
Otherwise, why would anyone want another tool of the 1% and corporations on the SCOTUS to rule, once again, against the middle class and the common man?
You're right and that's really sad. My husband frequently says that if Trump told one of his supporters to kill their first born they would ask him if he had a specific method of execution in mind.
I don’t want Kavanaugh, per se, on the SCOTUS. I do know his policy positions, as far as I was concerned he was actually dead last of the list of potential picks. No, my motivation is based on:
I want election results respected.
I am still cringing from the senators who implied or actually said the burden of proof is on the accused.
I am livid that sexual abuse has been weaponized.
Moving goal posts drive me crazy.
I am genuinely concerned that if this worked destroying someone’s life will become the norm.
It will negatively impact who will be willing to step up to these jobs in the future.
I don’t think a person in their 50’s should be judged on actions as a teenager, or even early 20’s, if it is contrary their actions as a full fledged adult.
It is concerning to me when the character of a person is based on looking through the lens of today’s sensibilities at actions that happened when cultural norms were different.
- oh, and unlike every chicken politician out there who refuses to admit they feel this way, but I have to admit I didn’t find her story credible. The more I’ve watched this circus the more I become convinced of this.
What I don't understand is that when Trump picked Kavanaugh, many conservatives were disappointed as he has a track record of being less conservative than the others on the short list. Yet Dems lost their minds about this pick. Did they think Trump was going to nominate another Ginsberg or someone left of center?
Any candidate has a 50/50 chance of becoming president. But, you are right, I did greatly underestimate the stupidity of the American people in this instance.
I won't make that mistake again.
That said - the Republican party doesn't want to alienate women which is why your fantasy isn't going to happen.
And he was 17! Which is why he kept saying that 'seniors were eligible to drink' instead of saying he was. Just a little sleight of hand to fool ya. Worked!
I never questioned that: yes, he was 17 and yes, he was too young to be drinking even though, most of us if we are honest admit to drinking at 17 especially in the the days that this incident supposedly took place, but I was questioning the person who claims the drinking age was 21 in the early 80s when it was not He obviously did not know what he was talking about. I should say, he or she. I don't know which it was. I was not referring to what Kavanaugh said. I will add, I do not remember him saying seniors were allowed to drink but I am not doubting you of this.
Now, as for your comment about stupid people voted for Trump: are you really saying, people like you and the others who supported Hillary are brighter than those of us who voted for, what we saw as the lessor of the two evils? What makes you so righteous that you can call us all stupid??? Shame on you! whsr other. wo
The Senators are being chanted at by the authoritarian anti-democracy propagandists.
The US Constitution isn't "propaganda."
Odd that you don't know that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
