Oh enough with the BS and fake virtue signalling.HuMcK said:Edmond Bear said:HuMcK said:riflebear said:Jinx 2 said:
Ruth Marcus has this right:
...There must be a full investigation, beginning with FBI interviews of both Christine Blasey Ford, who made the accusation, and Kavanaugh himself, likely followed by some form of hearing. Though I would put nothing past the people who stole a Supreme Court seat from Merrick Garland, even this crew of Senate Republicans cannot muscle through the nomination, bleating about the unfairness of 11th-hour complaints.
The urgency is to investigate, not to rush to confirm a lifetime appointment. Surely a few Republican senators retain enough sense of institutional responsibility to insist on that if not because it is clearly the right thing to do, because in the era of #MeToo, their female constituents will not tolerate such rug-sweeping.
Exactly what is there to investigate?
- Nothing sexual happened.
- How can u investigate something 30 yrs ago when there was not sexual assault or murder?
- she admitted she didn't know where she was or how she got there but she remembers him?
- this was so serious Feinstein sat on it for 2 months. How is that caring for a woman?
- this lady is also a Democrat fundraiser, u all don't think this was all planned for her to come out a few days before?
- but don't worry, it's over. Republicans will fall for it again and give in.
- if true a drunken act (where there was no crime) in high school should wipe away 30 yrs of one of the brightest careers in our history?
Republicans if they fall for this haven't learned anything since 2016. But I have to hand it to Dems. It's a win/win for them. Even if he is confirmed they get to trash GOP for not caring about woman and 'assault' and it will work when voting happens. Dirty little Dems win again.
There were other qualified names to nominate who almost certainly wouldn't have had this issue in their past, including a woman named Amy Coney Barrett or Baylor's own Don Willett. McConnell even pushed for Trump (through the media) to not pick Kavanaugh, but Trump just had to try and get the "Presidents are above the law and can't be subpoenaed" guy on SCOTUS before his sh/t potentially hits the fan.
How much y'all wanna bet McConnell knew what was coming the same way he knew Roy Moore was a loser with disqualifying behavior in his past? And now here we are with the GOP staring a failed SCOTUS nomination in the face because they insist on nominating political operatives who protect their partisan interests over distinguished jurists.
I think what people are trying to show you is that no matter who was put up as the nominee, some last second, half-cocked accusation would have been made by Democrats trying to block nominee X.
Not everyone had the same amount of exposure as Kavanaugh does. Beyond this sexual assault matter, Kavanaugh was already a relatively unpopular SCOTUS nominee because of his untruths in testimony to Congress over the Bush-era stolen emails issue and his role in Ken Starr's investigation of Clinton. He has baggage that other qualified people don't...but he also holds legal views that may prove favorable to a sitting POTUS currently under investigation.
Sure the Dems would have gone after any nominee put forward, and after what happenned with Merrick Garland that's going to be S.O.P. for the foreseeable future, but do you think they would have had this level of success if the nominee was Willett or Barrett? I don't.
You don't actually have concerns about Kavanaugh...you just don't want him on the supreme court and you're trying to paint a narrative that is laughable at best, especially because you know RBG's old ass will die soon and the SC will be stacked with actual people that uphold the constitution.
It's clear to me that you just want to bend the rules for your favorite people but not for those you oppose. If you didn't, you'd be making a scene and uproar over Keith Ellison...but you haven't.