Kavanaugh Drama Risks Driving Moderates, Women Away From GOP

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
niceatheist said:
I think Kavanaugh’s nomination is in serious jeopardy.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think he’s finished. Democrats will not vote for a faithful Catholic, and will oppose the appointment of one no matter what they have to do. They suspect all faithful Catholics of being prolife, and since their only doctrine is abortion, they’ll do everything they can to oppose appointment of a faithful Catholic.

They’re doing this Ford thing in order to bully Collins and Murkowski into opposing Kavanaugh and to keep Heitkamp and Manchin on the pro-abort side.

No Catholic should ever vote for any Democrat again until it has purged itself of its devotion to death.
 
MikeInVA said:
Sorry, but I think Judge Moore was just smeared. I find it incredulous to believe that the behavior he was accused of would be tolerated in small-town America or so long.
Click to expand...
I also think he was smeared, but at least they were referencing his behavior as an adult.
 
I agree. It’s outrageous that the Democrats have once again turned a judicial nomination into a smear campaign. But even though Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation will be ruined in the process, the actual targets of this smear campaign are Senators Collins and Murkowski as well as Manchin and any potential pro-life Democrats. Put the pressure on them to cave on Kavanaugh. It’s not about sexual assault. It’s about abortion. I don’t see any indication that Kavanaugh is inclined to overturn Roe, but no matter. He’s Catholic, and he’s not firmly pro-abortion. He must be destroyed.

If the FBI investigates one 36 year old allegation and clears him, another will arise, and another and another. As many as it takes to never confirm him.

So, Trump can nominate Amy Conan Barret, and they’ll get to work on destroying her reputation next.
 
JimG said:
the actual targets of this smear campaign are Senators Collins and Murkowski as well as Manchin and any potential pro-life Democrats.
Click to expand...
Exactly! This gives them the perfect excuse to vote against Kavanaugh.
 
Of course. She also thinks Kavanaugh is too Catholic. Any Catholic who accepts Catholic teaching is too Catholic.
 
Judges at any level are supposed to apply the law. Their religious views may inform their decisions, but should not be the sole reason behind any decision. The United States is not a Catholic nation.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I’m impressed that he has calendars from 1982 laying around.
Click to expand...
I am surprised that he thinks that the lack of documentation about the event in question is meaningful. That is like Cohen waving his passport to prove he didn’t visit Czechoslovakia.
 
JimG said:
Of course. She also thinks Kavanaugh is too Catholic. Any Catholic who accepts Catholic teaching is too Catholic.
Click to expand...
Just plain old anti-Catholic bigotry. Feinstein and the other Dems might as well wear hoods to these hearings.
 
Exactly so. A Methodist Justice is not to interpret the Constitution in a Methodist way; a Catholic Justice is not to interpret the Constitution in a Catholic way. An Evangelical Justice is not to interpret the Constitution in an Evangelical way. All should interpet the Constitution according to what it’s author’s meant.

I recall seeing an interview with Justice Scalia once, which reminded me of this. Many pro-life people have suggested that the right to life guaranteed in the Constitution ought to be applied to the unborn, since they are human persons, human beings. Justice Scalia, in passing, disagred with this, because when the Constitution was written, the authors intended the word “person,” as, to quote him, “walking around persons.” There is nothing to indicate that they included the unborn child in that designation. So, should the question arise, he would have interpreted it in the light of the authors intent, not in the light of Catholic philosophy.
 
This would be an accordance with the longstanding definition in English common law.
 
dvdjs said:
Why are people so interested in sending a message to young boys that assault while shy of 18 years should be without consequences?
Click to expand...
No one is saying without consequences. The consequences should have been applied 36 years ago when they mattered. If the person has lived a stellar life since, what consequences do you think remain to be executed and for what reason?

I hope you are as consistent in applying your “consequences” to individuals like Ellison (whose actions have far more evidence attending them), or Booker who pretty much confessed to virtually the same action.

Please address the Ellison case first. Do you think he ought to lose the opportunity to serve political office once he has been proved guilty, especially given his denials?

I suspect his case will just disappear from public view, nothing more said, and his position in the DNC secure.

Consistency?
 
HarryStotle said:
The consequences should have been applied 36 years ago when they mattered. If the person has lived a stellar life since, what consequences do you think remain to be executed and for what reason?
Click to expand...
At the very least admission of the facts, a recognition of wrongful behavior, and an effort to make amends,
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I’m impressed that he has calendars from 1982 laying around.
Click to expand...
It does demonstrate he took life and success in it seriously. He obviously was involved in so many activities that he had the need to organize himself. This was the year before going to Yale, an elite college, where the typical teen does not end up attending. His mother was a judge.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
A court of law would find it meaningful. He is a lawyer and knows this.
Click to expand...
An argument from silence? Really?
Click to expand...
It isn’t “silence” exactly. The dates of parties were noted and the names of friends attending were also listed.

You don’t mark your calendar after the fact and one typically doesn’t anticipate what will happen before going.

Unless there are signs of tampering, the absence of a party fitting the description counts as evidence, especially if there remain no open dates when the party in question could have occurred. If his evenings were all filled, that would be something approaching an alibi.
 
Last edited:
Xanax might help with the fear of flying aspect. If she really felt strongly about this I think she’d find a way to get there. Do other people who are called to testify in front of Congress get to make these sorts of demands? Just curious.
 
Alprazolam
Brand name: Xanax

Sedative
It can treat anxiety and panic disorder.

Controlled substance
Can cause paranoid or suicidal ideation and impair memory, judgment, and coordination. Combining with other substances, particularly alcohol, can slow breathing and possibly lead to death.

—————-

Personally I take Dramamine but I can’t fly for over 2 hrs without a break on terra firma.
 
But neither does the constitution state a right to abortion on demand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top