Roe v. Wade and the new SC Justice

[Tank]

6 hours ago, Taylor said:

Tank, many people who are sexually assaulted never speak out about it, even decades later, because it's such a horribly traumatizing experience.

understood. it's a difficult issue and victims have a very long history of not speaking up.

my issue is with the way this has been used in the confirmation process. they've stopped looking at the candidate and his legal positions and are now focusing only on an event that may or may not have happened some 35 years ago, and they're treating it like it's some kind of egregious sin. i hate the way this has been politicized. i hate that something from so long ago has been thrust into the forefront like this as such a pivotal issue because it now means absolutely nothing in anyone's past is off limits, and that's a horrible precedent to set.

[UndertheHalo]

Or maybe she really did just decide that this guy was going to be appointed to one of the highest offices in the country.  For life.   And chose to now speak out.   

Who knows. Sometimes the chickens do come home to roost.  It may be that simple.  And if so, F*ck Brett Kavanaugh. 

[Jason]

 I’m not sure that Justice is the motivation here

[Blarg]

11th hour claim of underage nookie. This is the best we can do as a country? 

[Amazing Larry]

It’s the best the dems can do. They should be focusing on building a robotic body for Ginsburg.

[Jason]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/18/kavanaugh-accuser-has-not-yet-accepted-invitation-to-testify-before-congress.html

If she doesn't show on Monday then they need to move on from this.

[fan_since79]

8 hours ago, Tank said:

understood. it's a difficult issue and victims have a very long history of not speaking up.

my issue is with the way this has been used in the confirmation process. they've stopped looking at the candidate and his legal positions and are now focusing only on an event that may or may not have happened some 35 years ago, and they're treating it like it's some kind of egregious sin. i hate the way this has been politicized. i hate that something from so long ago has been thrust into the forefront like this as such a pivotal issue because it now means absolutely nothing in anyone's past is off limits, and that's a horrible precedent to set.

At what point in time did "advise and consent" become attack and consume?

This is an ugly country now. People are at each other's throats over political differences. The 24/7 cable networks fuel the continuing enmity and contention. Trump also facilitates it with his confrontational tweeting and general demeanor. His 'base' loves it, but Trump must remember he barely won the election by the smallest of margins in at least three crucial states. If the House returns to the Dems the whole game changes.

I expect if Kavanaugh is confirmed to see demonstrations and even threats against him in the months and years to come. Are Supreme Court hearings open to the public? Expect a repeat of the committee hearings. This beast is insatiable. 

[mtangelsfan]

Look, as politicized as the Court is now, I am not a fan of it going 6-3 in either direction.  I also think that the Republicans are guilty of dereliction of duty for not having the meetings for Garland.  

Unfortunately these two facts have rolled down to where we are now and even though those two things should have zero bearing on the current nominee it does.  With that, I worry that when we have a claim from so long ago it is impossible to disprove.  The reason that we have a statute of limitations is for the protection of the defendant.  While this isn't a criminal case, it might as well be one as now this person has to try to prove his innocence from something that happened several decades ago.

Unfortunately, we deserve the government we get.

[fan_since79]

The Wall Street Journal nails it.

https://outline.com/KbbGuF

 

[Lou]

It's over.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus has weighed in. 

Next. 

[the dude abides]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

It's over.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus has weighed in. 

Next. 

Meh, she's no Scott Baio.

[fan_since79]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

 I’m not sure that Justice is the motivation here

But...but...the charges are serious!

 

[Lou]

4 minutes ago, the dude abides said:

Meh, she's no Scott Baio.

who is?

[Lou]

28 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

The Wall Street Journal nails it.

https://outline.com/KbbGuF

 

I agree 

[fan_since79]

Jill Abramson, on CNN this morning. Oh, the irony. Nothing about destroying Judge Kavanaugh. 

"I think that the Republicans, despite all the changes that have happened in the generations since those [Clarence Thomas] hearings, are still going to go in with a strategy to save this nomination at all costs. And if that means destroying, destroying Dr. Ford, I hate to even think about it, but I think it's going to be the same kind of political circus that we saw back in 1991. That's what worries me."

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2018/09/18/jill-abramson-shudders-think-republicans-destroying-christine

[Spirit]

This thing is going to be a next level circus.

 

 

[Jason]

[Taylor]

Yep, that's definitely the equivalent of a 17-year-old trying to violently rape a 15-year-old.

[UndertheHalo]

Hypothetically, if it was proven that he did what this woman is accusing him of would some of you guys even care ? 

Because honestly, it really seems like a bunch of you wouldn’t. 

[fan_since79]

20 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Yep, that's definitely the equivalent of a 17-year-old allegedly, without corroboration so far, of being present at a party and allegedly (again without corroboration) assaulting trying to violently rape a 15-year-old.

 Assuming she's telling the truth, he didn't even come remotely close to the violent rape stage. The thing (if it actually occurred) happened in seconds and ended seconds later.

[fan_since79]

Just now, UndertheHalo said:

Hypothetically, if it was proven that he did what this woman is accusing him of would some of you guys even care ? 

Because honestly, it really seems like a bunch of you wouldn’t. 

I would think differently of him if it was proven that this occurred. 

 

[UndertheHalo]

Just now, fan_since79 said:

 Assuming she's telling the truth, he didn't even come remotely close to the violent rape stage. The thing (if it actually occurred) happened in seconds and ended seconds later.

Jesus, this embarrassing dude.  Look at what you’re saying.  Shameful. 

This board is full of fuc*king shitty takes.  I’m probably responsible for some of them.  But the stuff you’ve posted here is reprehensible.  Stop and think about what you’re crusading on.  You look awful. 

[UndertheHalo]

Like holy shit.  Did did he have to penetrate before you’ll believe it was going to be rape.  The story that’s shes telling is violent assault 

[UndertheHalo]

A bunch of you hardcore conservatives are happy deny people the right to vote and any realistic possibility of employment over drug crimes that didn’t hurt anyone.  Yet here you are zealously defending a guy about to get appointed to the Supreme Court who accused of sexual assault.  

[Spirit]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

Hypothetically, if it was proven that he did what this woman is accusing him of would some of you guys even care ? 

Because honestly, it really seems like a bunch of you wouldn’t. 

 

What do you mean by "care?"

If you mean, do I think he should be confirmed to the SCOTUS, the answer is no.

And with that ...

Hypothetically, if it's not proven that he did what this woman is accusing him of would you guys even care? 

Because honestly, it really seems like you wouldn’t.