PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lying is a political maneuver?......sorry, that is bullshit...
The Smearing Of Brett Kavanaugh Is Truly Evil
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
you are looking at the law as a living document instead of the written Constitutional text.
If Judge K were to help overturn Roe v. Wade he would do it by denying the implied right to privacy,
which is the underpinning of Roe v.s wade. not because of "hostility to women".
And again you are saying his rulings reflect on his character. that is a grotesque conflation.
It's a disservice to rulings on the facts or constitutionality of the case, as well as using a ruling to smear his character.
I cannot tell you just how loathsome a construct you have made here -
deleterious to the rule of law as well as Judge K.
I have no idea what you are saying that an appellate court does not rule on facts of a case.
They do not hear new evidence, but they rule on the arguments and of course the case law.
They rule on the procedures and they also say if evidence was proper or improperly entered ( the facts)
You call anything that is not "feminist" based "anti-woman". They are not always the same-
and they are not ruled on because they advance or retard a "feminist agenda".
The rulings are based on the merits or demerits of the case. whichever way it effects an agenda or not.
you are using the same specious reasoning that any case ruling against the feminist agenda is directly caused because of judge K's inherent anti-woman bias.
It's silly, false and a dangerous analysis of jurisprudence
meaning less statistics without a foundation.
I would say picking 65 people ( and he did not "pick" them) and finding one is not in step with the others
is still damn good considering the complexity of humans personality/behaviors.
it's beyond hilarious irony that you find the republicans are using a "political operation" ( as well as unfounded accusation)-
but you fail to see the political weaponization of #meetoo by the Democrats
Last edited:
Do you like to wine off topic about everything? I call liars liars snowflake. You don't like it, don't lie. I am having a debate with a liar; if you are going to stupidly inject yourself into the argument, have something to say instead of your usual pathetic whining.
I called this asshole a liar and showed how they were; did you miss that part strawman?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I will.......Garland was blocked because the Republicans had the votes to do it.........payback would be the demmycrats blocking the vote because they had the votes to do it........not lying about someone because you have the balls to do it.........
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
how many did you buy?.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I'm saying it, you brainless cunt.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you won't be as happy after the next election.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
one where Kavanaugh passed an FBI investigation to be nominated........
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
she has a long way to drive by Thursday.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
dude, you cunts should be used to it by now.......
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
If Kavanaugh believes he's not guilty of anything, why wouldn't HE demand that all involved take the test .. including HIM.
Obviously there is something that he and republicans are trying to hide .. but feel free to believe whatever makes you comfy.
I'm assuming you mean the Ford claim (remember, two women have come forward with claims so far). We don't know what merit it has. We know that it has some indirect corroboration -- her husband and therapist both making it clear she was telling these stories well before the nomination could explain a fabrication.
There's evidence that she suffered something that messed her up enough that she was getting therapy for it decades later.
Agreed entirely. But I'm not the one who had to stand up to the vast right-wing smear machine. She knew what happened to women who stood between Republicans and the moves they wanted to make on the high court. We all saw what they did to Anita Hill. It was so terrible that one of their leading propagandists of the time, David Brock (author of the "Real Anita Hill" hit piece) became so disgusted with himself that he left the party entirely. So, I can see how Ford might not be willing to take that personal hit just to keep him off a lower court, but would suck it up and do it when the stakes were even higher.
Do you know who believes that? That's right: nobody.... not even you. There's a reason that guys like Kavanaugh don't turn down Supreme Court nominations with the idea that they'll be more influential on a lower appeals court. There's a reason that parties don't decide to keep their favorite and most effective lower-court judges in place, for fear they'll be less influential if they're promoted.
God, the crap Republicans will say when they get into "kitchen sink" argumentation mode is just hilarious!. They'll throw any inane idea out there and hope something eventually hits.
As you know, I never tried to argue that. Try to stick to reality.
Yes. We know much about his character from things like his close involvement with Bush's war crimes and torture. However, I'm not willing to go far enough to say that because he's clearly such a piece of shit scumbag of a person in those aspects, he must also be an attempted rapist. I want to see how they each come across in the hearings, and if more evidence comes out.
Yes, despite his known history of being a blackout drunk, etc., he seems to have stayed out of legal trouble and to have been a good family man with professional accomplishments. And that puts him on even footing with Ford, who is a professionally accomplished family woman with no criminal record (and without the history of binge drinking). So, who to believe? That's the question.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Kavanaugh should take a lie detector test on allegations
It is hard to overstate the confusion, inconsistency and chaos that has emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Clearly, it would have made a key difference if Professor Christine Blasey Ford had come forward weeks ago with her allegation that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when she was 15 years old. Or if Sen. Diane Feinstein had revealed, prior to last week, her knowledge of the event.
But the way that Sen. Charles Grassley and his Republican colleagues have handled the disclosure is also eerily reminiscent of how poorly Sen. Joseph Biden and the Judiciary Committee handled the Anita Hill testimony about Justice Clarence Thomas 28 years ago.
There was no investigation then, and according to Grassley, there will be no investigation now. All this despite the ancillary evidence available in the memoir of his high school years at Georgetown Prep by Mark Judge, the person whom Blasey Ford says was in the room where she says the assault took place.
Judge’s book talks almost gleefully about the near-permanent state of inebriation that he and his prep school buddies lived in. Kavanaugh is a character in Judge’s book (though with a slightly different first name), whom he characterizes as being constantly drunk. Why is Mark Judge not being called as a witness before the Judiciary Committee?
But there is an even bigger question. We have historical evidence that Blasey Ford has focused on this traumatic event well before this week, or this summer. She raised it with the marriage counselor she and her husband were seeing more than half a decade ago. The therapist has notes of the conversation.
Even more important, lawyers for Blasey Ford recommended that she take a lie-detector test. The test, administered by a former FBI agent, showed that she was indeed describing truthfully the assault that had happened when she was a teenager.
It is difficult to rationalize how Grassley and his fellow Republicans can shunt aside a request for an FBI investigation of Blasey Ford’s testimony. According to news reports, similar investigations have occurred within a period of one or two weeks. But even if the Judiciary Committee will not invite such an investigation, surely they can request that Kavanaugh undergo the same kind of lie-detector test that Blasey Ford took.
https://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/article218798540.html
It is DR> FORD who is calling for the FBI to investigate .. which means that if there is any question about her first test, she would take the test again.
Let's se the hands of Trumptards who believe that Kavanaugh would do the same thing.
It is hard to overstate the confusion, inconsistency and chaos that has emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Clearly, it would have made a key difference if Professor Christine Blasey Ford had come forward weeks ago with her allegation that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when she was 15 years old. Or if Sen. Diane Feinstein had revealed, prior to last week, her knowledge of the event.
But the way that Sen. Charles Grassley and his Republican colleagues have handled the disclosure is also eerily reminiscent of how poorly Sen. Joseph Biden and the Judiciary Committee handled the Anita Hill testimony about Justice Clarence Thomas 28 years ago.
There was no investigation then, and according to Grassley, there will be no investigation now. All this despite the ancillary evidence available in the memoir of his high school years at Georgetown Prep by Mark Judge, the person whom Blasey Ford says was in the room where she says the assault took place.
Judge’s book talks almost gleefully about the near-permanent state of inebriation that he and his prep school buddies lived in. Kavanaugh is a character in Judge’s book (though with a slightly different first name), whom he characterizes as being constantly drunk. Why is Mark Judge not being called as a witness before the Judiciary Committee?
But there is an even bigger question. We have historical evidence that Blasey Ford has focused on this traumatic event well before this week, or this summer. She raised it with the marriage counselor she and her husband were seeing more than half a decade ago. The therapist has notes of the conversation.
Even more important, lawyers for Blasey Ford recommended that she take a lie-detector test. The test, administered by a former FBI agent, showed that she was indeed describing truthfully the assault that had happened when she was a teenager.
It is difficult to rationalize how Grassley and his fellow Republicans can shunt aside a request for an FBI investigation of Blasey Ford’s testimony. According to news reports, similar investigations have occurred within a period of one or two weeks. But even if the Judiciary Committee will not invite such an investigation, surely they can request that Kavanaugh undergo the same kind of lie-detector test that Blasey Ford took.
https://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/article218798540.html
It is DR> FORD who is calling for the FBI to investigate .. which means that if there is any question about her first test, she would take the test again.
Let's se the hands of Trumptards who believe that Kavanaugh would do the same thing.
The new Congress isn't sitting until January, so there's no realistic hope that the investigation can be kept going until then, even if the Democrats defy expectations and pick up a few seats in the election. This isn't about playing for time. It's about wanted to investigate what happened, so we don't put the wrong person into a lifetime role with massive political power. Why do Republicans act like that's so much to ask?
If you want to talk about playing a fucking game for time, look no further than the Garland pick. He sat for 293 days without so much as a single hearing.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Fox News Poll: Record number of voters oppose Kavanaugh nomination
Overall, the 50 percent opposing Kavanaugh is the highest opposition to a Supreme Court nominee in Fox surveys going back to 2005. Forty-six opposed Kavanaugh in August. Before his nomination, the previous high was when 39 percent opposed Neil Gorsuch in March 2017.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...umber-voters-oppose-kavanaugh-nomination.html
Support for Brett Kavanaugh is dwindling among voters amid sexual assault allegations
Multiple polls show that voters are souring on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...naugh-confirmation-poll-christine-blasey-ford
Public support for Kavanaugh had turned negative even before latest allegation of sexual misconduct
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/24/sup...e-latest-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct.html
Trumptards are stupid people.
Overall, the 50 percent opposing Kavanaugh is the highest opposition to a Supreme Court nominee in Fox surveys going back to 2005. Forty-six opposed Kavanaugh in August. Before his nomination, the previous high was when 39 percent opposed Neil Gorsuch in March 2017.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...umber-voters-oppose-kavanaugh-nomination.html
Support for Brett Kavanaugh is dwindling among voters amid sexual assault allegations
Multiple polls show that voters are souring on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...naugh-confirmation-poll-christine-blasey-ford
Public support for Kavanaugh had turned negative even before latest allegation of sexual misconduct
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/24/sup...e-latest-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct.html
Trumptards are stupid people.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
STUPID
Fortunately, there's nothing magical about Thursday. We have months and months to do this. Heck, Garland waited 293 days without even a hearing, so this is nothing.
