The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[falafel]

Or Kavanaugh is a shitty nominee. They won’t be able to stonewall a nominee until January. Don’t be silly. It’s about Kavanaugh, not about resisting nominating a conservative as much as the GOP whine hypocritically that it is the case.

Dems are on record as saying they would oppose any nominee with all their might, mind and strength (or similar). Don't kid yourself that this is about Kavanaugh as a shitty nominee. They are all shitty nominees to the left.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting to note that 11 democrats voted for Clarence Thomas.

[creekster]

Thinking back on last week, I'm trending in the same direction.

I'm not. I think his judicial temperament is fine when he is in a judicial setting. The scurrilous approach taken by Feinstein merits outrage. I am neither surprised nor disappointed in his conduct and I do not find it disqualifying under these circumstances.

[falafel]

[QUOTE=frank ryan;1383491]

Why would his drinking habits at Yale have anything to do with an incident in highschool

Seriously? For one it would call his honesty and cried I pity in question, not to mention may have accompanied other inappropriate sexual behaviour

Is that a joke? We are not opening this up for a full scale investigation of his entire life. That process already took place when the FBI backgrounded him 6 separate times.

[Goatnapper'96]

I'm not. I think his judicial temperament is fine when he is in a judicial setting. The scurrilous approach taken by Feinstein merits outrage. I am neither surprised nor disappointed in his conduct and I do not find it disqualifying under these circumstances.

I am with you. Sometimes colloquial equivalents of an anal orifice just need a serious FU! When the issue is entirely personal he has every right for outrage.

[Goatnapper'96]

Interesting to note that 11 democrats voted for Clarence Thomas.

Greatest embarassment of Joe Biden's life. Seriously, in hindsight what possible benefit did she get out of coming forward?

[falafel]

I'm not. I think his judicial temperament is fine when he is in a judicial setting. The scurrilous approach taken by Feinstein merits outrage. I am neither surprised nor disappointed in his conduct and I do not find it disqualifying under these circumstances.

Didn't say it was disqualifying, but I do think there is something of a bad taste after all the yelling about how he likes beer.

[creekster]

Seriously, in hindsight what possible benefit did she get out of coming forward?

She is fêted as one of the bravest and impactful feminists of the last 30 years.

[creekster]

Didn't say it was disqualifying, but I do think there is something of a bad taste after all the yelling about how he likes beer.

You seem to be sensitive, as I didn't claim that you found it disqualifying. Although one might wonder what the point is of continuing to evaluate the temperment issue, as you claim to be doing, unless you are going to use it to make a decision on his qualification to serve on the supreme court. But that is up to you. I was just commenting on the topic you raised.

[frank ryan]

Disagree. I guess we will find out for sure if they manage to derail BK.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Unless they have some magical powers not yet disclosed there is no way in hell they could deny a Trump appointee. You’re being a bit ridiculous.

[Goatnapper'96]

She is fêted as one of the bravest and impactful feminists of the last 30 years.

Really? You mean to tell me that Dr Ford might actually stand to benefit for this coming forward? Your would likely deeply disappoint both of your duly elected Senators!

[frank ryan]

Dems are on record as saying they would oppose any nominee with all their might, mind and strength (or similar). Don't kid yourself that this is about Kavanaugh as a shitty nominee. They are all shitty nominees to the left.

Of course they will oppose any nominee but that doesn’t mean any nominee is going to get accused of sexual assault.

[falafel]

You seem to be sensitive, as I didn't claim that you found it disqualifying. Although one might wonder what the point is of continuing to evaluate the temperment issue, as you claim to be doing, unless you are going to use it to make a decision on his qualification to serve on the supreme court. But that is up to you. I was just commenting on the topic you raised.

Figured you'd say something like that. But your comment that you didn't find his temperament to be disqualifying was made in response to my post about my opinion on him beginning to turn a bit. So I think its logical to assume that you thought that perhaps I thought it was disqualifying to some degree. And then you confirmed that assumption by noting that discussing his temperament is worthless unless you are going to use it to evaluate his qualification.

Anyway, since I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee or the Senate at large (and neither are you), whether we find his demeanor disqualifying is just water cooler talk.

[frank ryan]

[QUOTE=falafel;1383521]

Is that a joke? We are not opening this up for a full scale investigation of his entire life. That process already took place when the FBI backgrounded him 6 separate times.

Sounds like they missed some shit. No it’s not a joke, the guy has been accused by multiple women of nasty shit while under the influence of booze. People who knew him during those periods are contradicting virginal church boy images.

[falafel]

Of course they will oppose any nominee but that doesn’t mean any nominee is going to get accused of sexual assault.

You've got to admit, in today's #metoo climate, that is the quickest and easiest way to end a nomination. You don't even need to have proof of those types of allegations in most situations!