Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation Hearing Now with Poll

[Petrasylvania]

Are you assuming the cons want to make things better?

Politics is a pendulum. You swing it hard to one side and it will swing just as hard to the other side.

I'm saying both sides need to fucking stop acting like children and actually do their fucking jobs for a change.

The Republicans got the whole government by being bawling babies so there's no real motivation for either side to be adults.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I'm saying both sides need to fucking stop acting like children and actually do their fucking jobs for a change.

The Republicans got the whole government by being bawling babies so there's no real motivation for either side to be adults.

[Thermodolia]

Yes, excellent progressive thinking right here.

......

It's backwards shit thinking like that that's making problems all around worse, not better.

Are you assuming the cons want to make things better?

Politics is a pendulum. You swing it hard to one side and it will swing just as hard to the other side.

Until it’s not.

It wouldn’t take much for someone to break the pendulum and use it as a culb against their enemies

[Petrasylvania]

The Republicans got the whole government by being bawling babies so there's no real motivation for either side to be adults.

Rolling your eye won't make it false. :^]

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm saying both sides need to fucking stop acting like children and actually do their fucking jobs for a change.

The Republicans got the whole government by being bawling babies so there's no real motivation for either side to be adults.

The Republicans got the whole government because the Democrats have increasingly self segregated themselves making it hard to take the House or Senate and because voters in the Blue Wall were dissatisfied with neoliberal economics and either stayed home or voted for Trump.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I'm saying both sides need to fucking stop acting like children and actually do their fucking jobs for a change.

The Republicans got the whole government by being bawling babies so there's no real motivation for either side to be adults.

Ah yes, and how did the Democrats react to the Republicans coming to power through supposed "bawling"?...

By bawling like babies their own damn selves.

Seriously, both parties along with many of their partisans have become literal laughing stocks, but frankly, if I had to pick a side, I'd go Republican because they have even the tinest most remote shred of reasoning left.

[Greed and Death]

Wait, if she could see far enough into the future to write the letter why didn't she get a gun and prevent Kavanaugh from being nominated to begin with?

Oh right, she was 15 at the time.

Two words. Fake ID.

How do you think 17 year old Kavanaugh got his booze? Fake ID. He sure wasn't patient enough to distill it.

Maybe he should have put his hand over his own mouth and that's where he originally went bad. Poor little drunk conservative kid with a district court judge for a Mommy. The horror.

Age for booze back then was 18. Likely the old senior was called to buy booze.

[Greed and Death]

To be fair Kavanaugh never dodged this, he denied it. A dodge is a way to avoid answering a question so as to avoid perjury charges. A denial subjects the speaker to perjury.

As for who is presenting a story that is hard to nail down you should look to the accused. Thus far we have the emotional bits of the story, "he held me down and I thought he might kill me". But what is devoid from her story are verifiable facts.

Whose house was the party at ? She doesn't know.
What day was the party on ? She doesn't know.
What month was the party on ? She doesn't know.
What were the names of the people at the party ? She doesn't know.


So you mean to tell me on a date she is unsure of it at a house she doesn't know with people she doesn't know (except Kavanuagh and Mark Judge) despite the fact the girls present were likely classmates of hers at Holtan arms, she remembers in explicit details what Kavanaugh and Judge allegedly did to her. Her Story is like trying nail jello to a wall.

Anyway I will tell you how this will go unless she provides more facts. The democrats will question her on direct to present her story. The next day the Republicans will question her on cross to punch holes in it and to point out how her story lacks the sort of facts Kavanaugh would need to show he was not or could not have been there. The Republicans will point out she came forward in a way that seems almost calculated to delay the confirmation vote.

If she provides details Kavanaugh will speak and likely present a witness that is an alibi (likely his HS girlfriend, his College Girlfriend,or a family member). If she does not provide details Kavanuagh will not speak and instead the Republicans letter signed by 65 women will be entered into evidence again and a few choice women who signed it will be interviewed by the senate bonus points if they were classmates with the Accuser and thought she was weird or crazy.

After all of that Kavanuagh will be confirmed. The Republicans will defend it by pointing out the accuser failed to meet her greatly reduced burden of proof either because she provided no verifiable facts or it was a She said He said situation. They will then lament that Metoo movement has been weaponized.

The sad part, is that they are right. End of the day this does hurt the credibility of the movement

Well the next supreme court justice is going to lean very heavily to the rights of the accused in sexual assault cases I can promise you that.

[Ethel mermania]

The sad part, is that they are right. End of the day this does hurt the credibility of the movement

Well the next supreme court justice is going to lean very heavily to the rights of the accused in sexual assault cases I can promise you that.

Personal experience is a bitch, agreed.

[The Archregimancy]

Remind me who's currently in charge; the Optimates or the Populares?

[Albrenia]

Remind me who's currently in charge; the Optimates or the Populares?

The Decepticons.

[Dahon]

Remind me who's currently in charge; the Optimates or the Populares?

The Decepticons.

Megatron was a capable leader, I shit you not. But if Trump's Megatron, who the fuck is Starscream?

[The Archregimancy]

The Decepticons.

Megatron was a capable leader, I shit you not. But if Trump's Megatron, who the fuck is Starscream?

<sigh>

I was more interested in working out who's Marius and who's Sulla; and instead the conversation's turned to Transformers.

<mutters about them darned kids these days>

[Dahon]

Megatron was a capable leader, I shit you not. But if Trump's Megatron, who the fuck is Starscream?

<sigh>

I was more interested in working out who's Marius and who's Sulla; and instead the conversation's turned to Transformers.

<mutters about them darned kids these days>

I would rather talk takhles about history, but ya gotta dance with them what brung ya, y'know?

[Tahar Joblis]

Nothing in the Constitution says there has to be only nine Supreme Court Justices. Just sayin'.

Cause stacking the courts in one sides favor when you don't get your way after an election while at the same time bitching about how the courts might be stacked in the other sides favor is absolutely brilliant thinking.

The alternative is impeachment that might be thought politically motivated. Which would be the option for removing judges who have proven to have done things like, oh, lying in their confirmation hearings.

Unfortunately, impeachment of Supreme Court justices is, proportionately, even rarer than impeachment of presidents. It would be very hard to do that without it being viewed as politically motivated (inviting retaliation in kind as soon as the political winds shifted).

[Mardla]

RIP feminism. This imbecility will be another nail in equality's timely coffin.

[Tarsonis]

Except that’s entirely false as I already pointed out to Vess. The FBI is free to open its own criminal investigation against Kavanaugh, without the say of the White House. They chose not to, and rightly so: this case is uninvestigatable.

We’re not talking about a lack of/suppression of evidence of recent crimes, we’re talking about an alleged event 37 years ago, which according to the accusers own accounting of events has no credible eye witnesses. There is absolutely no way to investigate let alone prosecute their case. The FBI knows this, so they chose not to open a criminal investigation.

The White House hasn’t done anything in this case. They haven’t obstructed a criminal investigation and they haven’t asked the FBI to investigate the claim pursuant to the vetting process. The FBI can’t investigate for the nomination without the request of the White House. They can do a their own formal investigation but they chose not to.

Pah-leaze!!! They choose what Trump wants. He fires FBI directors and deputy directors and many others. Ask Mr. Sessions about how ridiculously demanding Mr. Trump is of his appointees. He's gone in November for not giving Trump exactly what baby wants. You can believe your "FBI chose not to" fairytale if you want. I for one prefer not to bury my head in the sand like some ostrich waiting naively before becoming a coat forfeited by a convicted criminal. Hang it up.

Yup, I've found the jumping off point for your credibility. Everything you said here is just partisan conjecture and spin.

[Vassenor]

RIP feminism. This imbecility will be another nail in equality's timely coffin.

Right, how dare we take rape victims seriously.

[Tarsonis]

The unwinnable case isn't being investigated becausee the supreme leader said not to, not because it's unwinnable...

And you think other people are naive?

I think some people play naive and...
All the world’s their stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts...

Yes, many parts. One day people may realize they know what a comedy and a tragedy appears as acted out concurrently ...and we'll call that play... "Donald Trump, the Obstructor-in-Chief." Then admit which people exactly were his enablers.

You've said that twice now: Obstructor-in-Chief. What exactly is Trump Obstructing?

[Tarsonis]

RIP feminism. This imbecility will be another nail in equality's timely coffin.

Right, how dare we take rape victims seriously.

There's something to be said for having, you know, evidence rather than just taking someone's word at face value. I mean, that's kind of only the basis for our entire legal system.

[The Archregimancy]

Nothing in the Constitution says there has to be only nine Supreme Court Justices. Just sayin'.

And indeed the number of justices has changed over time.

The court was set up in 1789 with only six justices (including the chief justice).

This was increased to seven in 1807 (after an unsuccessful and quickly repealed attempt to contract to five in 1801), and then to nine in 1837.

The court was briefly increased to ten justices in 1863, before returning to nine justices in 1869 (via an incomplete attempted contraction to 7 in 1866) - where it's remained ever since.

So for its first 80 years, the number of justices on the Supreme Court - as established by Congress (though not necessarily in fact) - fluctuated between 5-10.


The last serious attempt to change the number of justices was, of course, FDR's ill-fated 1937 Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, which could have seen the number of justices increase to 15, depending on the number of justices over the age of 70 1/2.

[Tarsonis]

Rolling your eye won't make it false. :^]

I mean, there's something to be said for not bickering and arguing over who killed who. Regardless of who started the cycle of poo on you politics, someone needs to end it. Trump is not a cause, he's a symptom.

[Tarsonis]

Nothing in the Constitution says there has to be only nine Supreme Court Justices. Just sayin'.

And indeed the number of justices has changed over time.

The court was set up in 1789 with only six justices (including the chief justice).

This was increased to seven in 1807 (after an unsuccessful and quickly repealed attempt to contract to five in 1801), and then to nine in 1837.

The court was briefly increased to ten justices in 1863, before returning to nine justices in 1869 (via an incomplete attempted contraction to 7 in 1866) - where it's remained ever since.

So for its first 80 years, the number of justices on the Supreme Court - as established by Congress (though not necessarily in fact) - fluctuated between 5-10.


The last serious attempt to change the number of justices was, of course, FDR's ill-fated 1937 Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, which could have seen the number of justices increase to 15, depending on the number of justices over the age of 70 1/2.

I don't know if I'd call it ill-fated. I think the prevailing consensus is right: that the JPRB was never meant to succeed, but coral the Hughes court into upholding the New Deal legislation, which it arguably did.

[Mardla]

RIP feminism. This imbecility will be another nail in equality's timely coffin.

Right, how dare we take rape victims seriously.

I take it very seriously. I also take communism very seriously. I don't take witch hunts very seriously, however.

[Tarsonis]

Right, how dare we take rape victims seriously.

I take it very seriously. I also take communism very seriously. I don't take witch hunts very seriously, however.

But how else will we build our bridges?