Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[Rubee]

It is a very immoral stance IMO, yet it’s more honest than ‘the fetus is not a person.’ Think about it, ‘This my body’ is a clear cold claim that, ‘Yes I know it’s human and I’m fine killing it or with other people killing it because it’s dependant on the mother.’ Its very honest (and chilling) as it should be.

 

[PJH_74]

Many of you reading this probably have no clue as to how this last week has been affecting people who have been sexually assaulted. I was in grade school. If you believe all those opposing Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation are doing it purely for political reasons, please remember that Judge Gorsuch’s (who possesses very similar credentials and views) nomination basically sailed through the Senate. Along with that the Senate refused to even have confirmation hearings on President Obama’s last choice for a SCOTUS judge. They as easily could have rejected him in committee, but took the cynical route. Why dig in heels on Judge Kavanaugh? These accusations will follow him even if confirmed. The President and Senate (who’s likelihood of flipping to Democratic control is a long shot) should have another two years to nominate and confirm just about anyone they want. If not addressed cleanly, I suspect this incident will also play a factor in the mid-term elections, which is truly political. It’s also not like some liberal is going to join the bench if the Democrats get hold of the Senate, the President will not nominate such a person.

As for the whole abortion side track in this thread, I like the “pro-Birth” label mentioned above. I have repeatedly said on this board that no proposals I’ve seen have any thought as to how the women will be supported, the man’s responsibility, how we would handle the likely huge influx in the need for foster care/adoptions and so on. So please work to save lives, but make sure they have solid experience living those lives.

 

[Axsenex]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If you know why I used this image then you know about the inside joke from the Supreme Court history…

My apology to Kentucky residents just in case if they got the message.

 

[phil19034]

If he’s guilty, then he should NOT be confirmed.

If the FBI comes back saying the allocations are valid , he shouldn’t be confirmed

But if the FBI still says there is no evidence, we cannot abandon the American principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I would rather 1000 guilt people go free than 1 innocent life be ruined.

NOTE: most are all guilty of considering someone guilty without evidence. However, the court of public opinion is bad enough. We don’t need congress operating the same way.

 

[ProVobis]

He has been nominated by due process, so he does have a right to be duly considered for that position and not be unfairly deprived of taking that seat.

Like Garland?

 

[chessnerd321]

I find myself leaning that way sometimes. But I can’t help but feel that if he IS innocent it’s deeply unjust. And even worse rewards this tactic. (Because of course if it’s untrue it’s clearly just a political tactic).

 

[PJH_74]

But if the FBI still says there is no evidence, we cannot abandon the American principle of innocent until proven guilty.

There is often no principle of innocent until proven guilty when it comes to employment for a regular person, you stand a good chance of being let go. I’ve seen it happen. We’re talking about lifetime employment for a guy who can fundamentally affect our lives for the next 40 odd years. It’s not like he is being criminally tried for sexual abuse, then I agree he should be afforded the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[ProVobis]

My recollection of the magazine as a traditionalist isn’t very favorable. That’s why I’m baffled by so much pro-Jesuit leanings pro-Trumpers suddenly have.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

But if the FBI still says there is no evidence, we cannot abandon the American principle of innocent until proven guilty.

There is often no principle of innocent until proven guilty when it comes to employment for a regular person, you stand a good chance of being let go. I’ve seen it happen. We’re talking about lifetime employment for a guy who can fundamentally affect our lives for the next 40 odd years. It’s not like he is being criminally tried for sexual abuse, then I agree he should be afforded the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

But job employment issues like that are considered CONFIDENTIAL. Sen Feinstein had the opportunity to handle this correctly by bringing the issue to CONFIDENTIALLY to the Judicial Committee.

But she didn’t and that mistake (whether on purpose or by honest mistake) has really hurt this nation.

They could have investigated it confidentially, etc. and then they could have gone to Trump quietly and said “he has this creditable but unverifiable ‘he said, she said’ sexual assault allegation against him from high school. We suggest you quietly replace him with someone else.”

But now it is public. If they do not confirm him, they will in effect ruining this man’s life. No one will ever hire him again and he will be impeached from his current bench job once Democrats have congress.

The consequences to him and his family for a no vote is just as big if this actually was a court case.

Congress MUST treat this like a trial at this point, because it now is a trial in the “Court of Public Opinion.”

 

[Augustinian]

Like Garland?

Mr. Garland wasn’t approved, but he didn’t have his character assassinated and his reputation and career left in ruins.

And, had Mrs. Clinton won the election, he would have likely been confirmed in the lame duck session.

 

[PJH_74]

But job employment issues like that are considered CONFIDENTIAL.

He is seeking a VERY public office; his employers are US. Our system of government guarantees our `RIGHT to choose who are our leaders are.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

But job employment issues like that are considered CONFIDENTIAL. Sen Feinstein had the opportunity to handle this correctly by bringing the issue to CONFIDENTIALLY to the Judicial Committee.

He is seeking a VERY public office; his employers are US. Our system of government guarantees our `RIGHT to choose who are our leaders are.

I NEVER said or meant anything contrary to that.

However, they STILL could have handled this PRIVATELY & CONFIDENTIALLY, like Dr. Ford says she wanted. It didn’t have to go public.

Now both lives & families (guilty or innocent) are ruined.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I know I am going to sidetrack this thread and this is going to fan a lot of flames, I do not want to harm or destroy or embitter anyone’s souls but if it’s alright, I would like to hear your responses to the following quotes below. Although hearing this smackdown does make me want to bring out the popcorn, I would genuninely like to hear answers from pro-lifers here.

As for the whole abortion side track in this thread, I like the “pro-Birth” label mentioned above. I have repeatedly said on this board that no proposals I’ve seen have any thought as to how the women will be supported, the man’s responsibility, how we would handle the likely huge influx in the need for foster care/adoptions and so on. So please work to save lives, but make sure they have solid experience living those lives.

As well as:

Roe v Wade isn’t going away. Legal abortion isn’t going away. Both sides stand to gain votes and contributions as long as it is around. Despite what they tell you, conservative politicians have no intention of ending it.

“…it is immoral to attempt to achieve good by doing evil.”

Absolutely correct. Conservatives cannot justify with, “desperate times call for desperate measures,” any more than Liberals can."

"Unfortunately, you’re right. More unfortunate, is that millions of people were duped into believing Trump would deliver it.

 

[Thorolfr]

I believe Dr. Ford. I therefore conclude that Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

How he would vote if elevated to the Court is completely irrelevant; Catholic theology teaches definitively that it is immoral to attempt to achieve good by doing evil.

Even if someone decides that there is not enough evidence to support Dr. Ford’s allegations, just the fact that Judge Kavanaugh has been caught telling small lies under oath about his drinking habits and other things is also very problematic and calls into question whether he is fit to sit on the nation’s highest court. As James Comey wrote recently:

F.B.I. agents…also know that little lies point to bigger lies. They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper.

According to the Washington Post:

Comey was alluding to a page in Kavanaugh’s senior yearbook that came into question during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday for its apparent references to sexual acts (including “Judge — have you boofed yet?” and “Devil’s Triangle”) and drinking to excess (“Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor”).

Kavanaugh insisted to the committee that “boofed” referred to flatulence, that “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game, and that he might have been the biggest contributor to the “Ralph Club” because he had a weak stomach.

 

[on_the_hill]

I find myself leaning that way sometimes. But I can’t help but feel that if he IS innocent it’s deeply unjust. And even worse rewards this tactic. (Because of course if it’s untrue it’s clearly just a political tactic).

I think . . . if it were me, I’d have said, “I’m not guilty but I’m not going to put my family through the fight,” and withdraw.

 

[on_the_hill]

Who keeps a calendar from high school for all those years? More than that, what high school kid keeps a calendar at all?

 

[chessnerd321]

That would definitely be written off as an admission of guilt. If he’s innocent the poor guy is in a total lose lose lose. Get angry? “See couldn’t you see him assulting people?” Remains composed “His denial was insincere.” He can’t win.

 

[on_the_hill]

Nope. He can’t.
But Americans have a fairly short memory when people drop out of public view for whatever reason.

 

[PJH_74]

how we would handle the likely huge influx in the need for foster care/adoptions

The current number of abortions is about 650,000 per year right now. 650000 x 18 years is 11,700,000 minors. As it stands, just over 100,000 kids are adopted every year. The adoption rate would have to increase 5 to 6 times just to keep up. No I’d never claim that those 11,700,000 kids would all go adopted, but I think you’d have to guess that 7-9 million would require public assistance. I’d be very skeptical that there would be the political support to make this all happen.

 

[Thorolfr]

But now it is public. If they do not confirm him, they will in effect ruining this man’s life. No one will ever hire him again and he will be impeached from his current bench job once Democrats have congress.

You’re exaggerating how much this has hurt Judge Kavanaugh’s employment prospects. He already has a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals and even if the Democrats take the House after the next elections and decided to impeach him (which seems unlikely to me), he’d still have to be convicted by a two-thirds majority of the Senate to be removed from office which would never happen.