Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A borking? This was ugly, a metaphor is more like what happened 2000 years ago… I almost feel like it would be wrong to say it out, or like Clarence Thomas said, a “high tech lynching” and that’s an ugly description too. I can’t believe such loathesome tactics are used…

I mean, I heard people say, “you know, I feel sorry for Kavanaugh”.

National Review has an article up that Feinstein should be censored.
 
Last edited:
There are some pro-life Democrats but in general, they can not fulfill that status, they will vote to fund for planned parenthood funding or something like that. There was a lady in Louisiana who at the state level, did sponsor some pro-life bills that were passed and signed by then-governor Jindal. So, there is a little of that around.

There are some pro-choice Republicans too. Some states like Massachusetts or Nevada may have even toned down the pro-life platforms in their individual states.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
True. They are anti-Catholic ism . They are anti-traditional Christian.
Click to expand...
Sorry. You do not get to define Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Neither do you.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
Ridgerunner:
I am not aware of any prolife Dems in congress.
Click to expand...
Huh?
You have posted in threads about Dan Lipiinski.
Have your polemics overtaken your own reality?
Click to expand...
And during Jim Crow, there were some anti-segregation Democrats. They finally convinced the rest of the party. Hopefully, the pro-life Democrats will do the same.
 
Victoria33 said:
A borking? This was ugly, a metaphor is more like what happened 2000 years ago… I almost feel like it would be wrong to say it out, or like Clarence Thomas said, a “high tech lynching” and that’s an ugly description too. I can’t believe such loathesome tactics are used…
Click to expand...
After destroying Bork and the attempt to destroy Clarence Thomas one can only hope the Republican senators understand fully what they’re dealing with. Ford’s story, while sensational, remains unconfirmed in any detail, and, given the outpouring of support from people who knew him - going back to high school - it seems unlikely it will get any better. Ford has apparently identified three of the boys she says were there (including Kavanaugh), and all three deny the accusation.

I think she has been given until 2:30 today to decide if she will testify. Kavanaugh said immediately he wanted the opportunity to testify to clear his name. We’ll see if Ford takes the stand, or testifies on the record even in private. It’s not looking good for her.
 
Last edited:
7_Sorrows said:
Come on! I am not that naive.

Another game of desperation!
Click to expand...
Thus, you are so willing to make a woman who was possibly sexually abused a victim again. Hasn’t the pedophile-priest scandal taught you a thing, as so many young girls and boys were afraid not only to go to the authorities but even to tell their parents? Are they “another game of desperation” as well?

Both common sense and common decency should tell us that we should not rush to judgment one way or the other, so let’s wait and see what happens instead of politicizing and prejudicing this.
 
Pro-abortion and sell the baby body parts is the litmus test for being a Democrat. That is their platform!
 
I was a supporter of Kavanaugh’s nomination, but I’m more and more leaning in the direction that maybe he shouldn’t be confirmed-- at least until after we hear their testimony.

She’s in favor of a FBI investigation but Kavanaugh is not. If I’m innocent, I’m all-in on an investigation to prove that I’m innocent. She has no advantage on pressing false charges as sex-abuse victims largely do not report they’re being abused because it tends to bring shame on them. Look what happened to Anita Hill as an example.

OTOH, Kavanaugh has a reason to possibly lie, namely to cover his butt. He has a lot to lose by telling the truth if he did indeed commit sexual abuse. So, I find his position to be more “unbelievable”, although I personally don’t go that far.

I still strongly feel that it would be a mistake to make a rush to judgement one way or the other, so I’m willing to wait & see. Are you?
 
No - further delay is unnecessary and harmful. The “victim” has not presented valid information to further delay a very important Judicial appointment of a proven candidate. This pretense has been created by the leading Democrats to resist and obstruct the Constitutional process. Its part II of the Democrat dossier! Same contrived plot.
 
Metis1 said:
She’s in favor of a FBI investigation but Kavanaugh is not.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe this is accurate. I doubt that Kavanaugh has said anything at all about an FBI investigation. Document this assertion.
If I’m innocent, I’m all-in on an investigation to prove that I’m innocent.
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh immediately agreed to testify before the committee. Sen. Grassley gave Ford a deadline, now twice extended, to state whether she would or would not testify herself.
She has no advantage on pressing false charges as sex-abuse victims largely do not report they’re being abused because it tends to bring shame on them . Look what happened to Anita Hill as an example.
Click to expand...
The Anita Hill case is a perfect example: an accusation brought without a shred of corroborating evidence. At least Hill went before the committee. We’ll find out later today if Ford even goes that far.
 
Metis1 said:
Thus, you are so willing to make a woman who was possibly sexually abused a victim again. Hasn’t the pedophile-priest scandal taught you a thing, as so many young girls and boys were afraid not only to go to the authorities but even to tell their parents? Are they “another game of desperation” as well?

Both common sense and common decency should tell us that we should not rush to judgment one way or the other, so let’s wait and see what happens instead of politicizing and prejudicing this.
Click to expand...
No need to go on witch hunts either.

Let’s not forget what the good book says, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
 
Last edited:
Let’s weigh the evidence so far:

Ford has yet to agree to give testimony to the committee in any of the four ways offered her.

Kavanaugh: “This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone,”…“I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity.”

Besides Kavanaugh, Ford identified two other “participants”: Mark Judge and “PJ”.

Mark Judge: " I have no memory of this alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Ford describes.”

Patrick J Smyth: “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. I have no knowledge of the party in question nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”
 
Kavanaugh has only stated that he is not guilty of these allegations. I don’t believe he has commented on any FBI investigation.

And, sadly, the victim in all of this is not the woman, it is the nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. The democrats have turned
this hearing into a circus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top