Topic: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh - page 13. (Read 13396 times)

Depends. Does the winner get to make the rules, including whether a ball punch is legal? I believe that's the calculation here if I'm getting your analogy right.

If you're in a boxing match and realize you are about to be bettered by your opponent, and the only chance you have is to punch him in the balls, do you take it?

Even more reason to call the bluff then and do the investigation.

The Democrats might believe that if they get Kavanaugh derailed they can somehow stall another nominee or at least get a more acceptable one. That's probably more risky than the Republican gamble but it's the only shot they got. The thing I'm not sure about is why the Republicans are gambling at all. The sooner they start the investigation the better their chance at getting Kavanaugh confirmed or getting another nominee through the process. Perhaps they're hoping it will all be resolved by Thursday.

You may believe the delay is moot but the Democrats are trying very hard to orchestrate delays. Over and over.

You could be right about the delay being moot. Won't be the first time a Demo political strategy backfired. Maybe they believe their own fake polling?

Trump has called the Dem's actions "a con game."

I tend to agree.

I never said I'm neutral but please keep trying.

If (1) the Democrats are losing and (2) Kavanaugh's accusers are lying - why wouldn't Republicans want to maximize their advantage in this situation? Conduct a proper FBI investigation, expose the lies, energize the base.

If the accusations are true it still seems like an opportunity for Republicans. Conduct a proper FBI investigation, oops the guy was a boozer frat boy, let's pick another Federalist judge, energize the base.

The delay is moot anyway. The investigation could have started last week, it could still start today, and can be completed fairly quickly. With or without the investigation the confirmation vote can be held at any time. It's just a matter of how certain Senate Republicans are of #1 and #2 and it would seem that they're less certain than you are. Do they know something you don't?

Yeah, but why should he? There is ZERO EVIDENCE and NO CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED. I guess we should just re-write the whole judicial process right? This is nothing but a ploy. If he orders the investigation the confirmation won't happen at least until after mid terms. If he doesn't he is "delegitimizing a sexual assault victim". How convenient the Democrats get something useful out of this either way.



For the love of God, please learn what ad-hominem means, and stop using the term as a cudgel. I don't paint you as anything. Your own words expose your motives here. You pretend to be neutral all you like if that's what you want. Also I love a good debate so opposing opinions are not a problem for me, but feel free to keep repeating it, maybe it will become true.




The Democrats ARE ALREADY LOSING. People are fleeing the left en mass due to their increasingly insane and divisive behavior. This is a desperate attempt at clawing back control of congress so they can attempt an impeachment. Convenient that "the delay doesn't matter". I am sure it "doesn't matter" because you are so neutral right? xD

I can't demand it. The President can and it has been done before.


I'm not a "lefty", whatever that means, but thank you for your totally non-ad-hominem attempt to paint me into a political group that you dislike just because I disagree with you.


It's not an unusual expectation to investigate allegations against someone nominated for a lifetime appointment. Lifetime. What's the rush? None of the midterms-delay-benefit cockamamie matters, particularly if the allegations are false, which would backfire badly for Democrats. On the other hand, there is virtually no losing strategy for Republicans but they're doing everything they can to create one. If they "plow through this" and lose the Senate afterwards I would laugh my non-lefty ass off. That would be totally self-inflicted (the loss, not the laugh).


Whoever paid for it would have to pay for at least 2 Republicans to make this work.

You mean "integrity in question" as a charge brought by Diane Feldstine, whose close associate turned out to have been a Chinese spy for decades?

Look at what they consider A-OK.

Hillary - For women's rights (but defended her abusive husband and insulted Paula Jones)

Pochahantas aka Elizabeth Warren - A liar who claims to be an Indian

Beto aka Robert O'Rourke - A hip acting Texas congressman running for Senate, who thinks it's cool to use a Hispanic nickname

Obama - A half-black half-white who decided his political fortunes lay in the directions of calling himself black

These people are corrupt to the core, me thinks.

Yeah, and the FBI can also not interfere in the confirmation process because they have no criminal complaints or evidence presented to them. This is quite prudent due to the COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE and the REFUSAL of the "victims" to FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES. You don't get to just demand the FBI investigate what you please or else you are going to hold the judicial process hostage.




Lol get over people having different opinions. THAT IS HILARIOUS coming from some one on the left. You might wanna tell your lefty brethren that rather than me. I have no issue with opposing opinions. I do however have an issue with the hijacking of the judicial process using false accusations of sexual assault over and over creating questions and doubt when ACTUAL VICTIMS report sexual assault. This is a disgusting ploy that is going to cost Democrats dearly and is a sign of extreme desperation. As usual the left doesn't give a fuck about the "minorities" they claim to represent, rather they are just a useful tool to exploit and hide behind. Also, yes it was a general "you", but also includes you individually.




None of this gibbering changes the time line, or the motivation for the Democrats. His integrity is only "in question" to the left because they are desperate.

Then again, perhaps the problem is that the Democratic Party has been bought and paid for by international interests not in the best interest of the USA.

There are like DOZEN MAJOR "conspiracy theories" turning out to be true, Nazi death camps among them.
Another dozen in the pipeline. No, Flat Earth is not among them.
I will try to open topic on this in Ivory Tower once I'm Full Member, but before that kindly forgive me this intrusion into your chat.

The FBI can do a background investigation without a criminal case.


Is that again one of those things where you're saying "you" but it's not directed at me? But just in case it is - you're delusional if you think me posting my opinion on a Bitcoin forum is going to drive the voter base one way or another. Get over people having different opinions.


Old news from long before these allegations. McCain has already been replaced, so that's irrelevant. "if controversial matters arise from his background" is exactly why an investigation is needed unless you're saying that a person of questionable integrity on the SCOTUS is acceptable.

Republicans can vote to confirm Kavanaugh tomorrow, or during the lame duck session, there is nothing to stop them. If they're worried that they don't have enough votes in their own party - that's hardly the fault of Democrats. Perhaps the problem is not the best and brightest nominee. I don't remember much drama with Gorsuch's nomination.

You might want to look up the definition of ad hominem BTW, rather than using logical fallacies as a crutch in a sad attempt at making it look as if I attacked you. No, a job interview is not a criminal case. Also pineapples are not reptiles. The second statement has about as much of a point as the first.

What WOULD be a criminal case however is a charge of sexual assault IF SOMEONE WERE TO FILE CHARGES, but they won't because this is just a ploy and they know it is a serious crime to file false charges. The FBI has NO OBLIGATION or mandate to do ANYTHING until CHARGES ARE FILED. Your right, those bastard Republicans thinking they can get voted in and then make decisions about our government as if they were elected to represent their constituents. WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE?

This is yet another attempt in an endless stream of attempts to reverse the 2016 election results. Trump won, that means he gets to pick, and Republicans have the majority. If you don't like that, get over it. Or for that matter stop driving the voter base to the right by supporting sick, transparent schemes like this putting real sexual assault victims into question over their claims because it has been abused so much as a ploy.



"When Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, offered his guidance about the court pick to Mr. Trump last week, he cautioned the president that the sheer volume of Judge Kavanaugh’s paperwork from a career in law and politics could hand Democrats the chance to stall a vote.

That could mean that Judge Kavanaugh would not be seated by the time the next court session begins in October and, if controversial matters arise from his background, perhaps even push a vote until after the November elections. And that is not what Mr. McConnell, who because of Senator John McCain’s absence has just 50 Senate Republicans available, would prefer."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/supreme-court-elections.html

Hardly a right wing rag. This is a last ditch attempt at delaying confirmation in the hopes that it can help them win the midterms, and then try to impeach Trump before he can seat any more judges.

She was speaking for her client, regardless of how untrustworthy she is. I don’t doubt that it was politically motivated though.

You've made a number of reasonable comments here.

I bolded one line because...

I wouldn't believe anything that attorney said. The stuff from the "attorney" can be assumed to be totally aligned with the political power grab effort here to stall the senate vote.

The accuser's lawyer initially said her client (the accuser from CA) would do anything it takes to get to testify in front of the committee, and when she received an invitation to testify, she later demanded a FBI investigation, so I would not give her all that much credit for reporting it before the hearings.

She also only gave her letter to a single Senator, who already was almost certainly going to vote against the nomination. Surely, if the accuser wanted her story heard by someone relevant, she would have sent it to Senator Grassley, Senator Graham, or Senator Flake, the later of which is always looking for ways to 'stick it' to Trump.

Lastly, we don't know who leaked the letter. It could have been Feinstein, the CA representative, either of their staffers, or someone from the accuser's camp. I would not outright dismiss the theory that someone from Ford's camp leaked the allegation. The initial article published by the Intercept was critical of Feinstein, so it was probably not done at her direction, although it could have been one of her staffers doing this on their own.

It's not a fact. Republicans have about 3 months remaining in the current session and very likely will maintain control of the Senate beyond that as well. They have better options than what they're currently doing. They can use the investigation to clear Kavanaugh's name. They can nominate someone else. There are no good options for Democrats, delay or no delay.

That's all assuming the allegations are false. If the allegations are true - that could benefit Democrats but without the control of the Senate there is not much they can do anyway.


Again, not a fact. You can't possibly know that.


Ridiculous. Lets replace the FBI with "fake news media" then? Of course the FBI can do a lot more. And lying to the FBI is not the same as lying to journalists.


Again, a job interview is not a criminal case. The criminal investigation may or may not happen before or after the confirmation. I would think it's better to ensure it doesn't happen after, i.e. the nominee should be fully investigated before. The optics of a criminal investigation of a SCOTUS judge would be not ideal, to put it mildly.

I believe it is fair to say this, though. She reported her beliefs prior to the Kavanaugh hearings. It was Fienstien that kept silent about her letter and reported it at the 11th hour.

Nobody would have complained about these charges being introduced at the proper time.

You are glossing over the fact that any delay will benefit the Democrats.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the evidence the FBI could potentially gather has already been made public, and that the FBI does not make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses in background check investigations, so the Washington Post and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker appear to have done everything the FBI could have done, although I have doubts that the information in the New Yorker article would meet the standard to make it in any FBI background check report.

The Senate Judiciary committee is already investigating Kavanaugh and the evidence is all more or less public and/or is being made public.

The women from CA should file a police report if she believes she is the victim of a crime. The reasons victims of these types of crimes do not go to the police do not exist in her case anymore because she has very much gone public with her story. Obviously she will not do this because it is a crime to file a false police report. 

My goals? Pray tell what are those? Or is it just the customary ad hominem when you run out of arguments?

A job interview is not a criminal case. Whether this benefits one side or another - remains to be seen. My guess is that nobody is gonna come out a clear winner out of this. Republicans can "plow right through" (excellent attack ad material right there) and risk alienating a good part of the largest demographic group of the electorate. Democrats can try stalling this as much as they can but they don't have any winning strategy if Republicans decide to stick with Kavanaugh. So it's a demolition derby basically. Who can crawl across the finish line.

None of it is a good reason to refuse to investigate these allegations though. If the accusers are lying the fallout would set a precedent for decades. Same if they're not. Both positive outcomes as far as I can see.