Just a reminder that if Cavanaugh helps to prevent a President from ever being indicted for a crime, so that Trump has free reign, then you are also giving that same privilege to the next ultra-liberal President. Do you really want the next Obama, Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke, etc, to be able to commit any crime they want without punishment? If you want Cavanaugh, that’s what you are asking for.
Kavanaugh. With a "K".
I must've been thinking about my local watering hole.
Part of me thinks Trump knew Democrats were going to block him, so Kavanaugh isn't really his #1 pick. I'm interested in hearing the woman's testimony, and I do find her to be credible based on her profile. I do not share the opinion that Kavanaugh is a bad guy who deserves to be demonized for an incident as a teen, however, maybe Supreme Court Judge isn't for him. A Supreme Court seat should only be filled by the best of our country who never had a lapse of judgment like that.
They are going to speed him through. They were much quicker in judging Al Franken.
They are going to speed him through. They were much quicker in judging Al Franken.
I'm afraid you are correct.
His views on executive power, a woman's right to choose, and birth control are unacceptable in a modern day society.
a woman's right to choose
Interesting in that the argument seems to have always been centered on "When does life begin"?. I believe and will continue to do so; it is a woman's choice concerning what goes on inside and with her own body. But, if that is the main point of contention....
A federal ban on abortion would be a catastrophic mistake - it should be left up to the states to decide. In my utopian world, aborition would never ever happen. However, the real world can be brutal. All types of people in this country partake in extremely reckless and irresponsible behavior that leads to babies being born into familes that can't raise them. I'm willing to listen to an abortion-ban law, provided that there is a rock solid plan to take care of all these new children in need. Since I don't believe that such a plan could work properly, I think at least some states MUST allow it so people have the option to travel there if necessary.
A federal ban on abortion would be a catastrophic mistake - it should be left up to the states to decide. In my utopian world, aborition would never ever happen. However, the real world can be brutal. All types of people in this country partake in extremely reckless and irresponsible behavior that leads to babies being born into familes that can't raise them. I'm willing to listen to an abortion-ban law, provided that there is a rock solid plan to take care of all these new children in need. Since I don't believe that such a plan could work properly, I think at least some states MUST allow it so people have the option to travel there if necessary.
No it should not be left up to the States. It should be settled law that it is and actually the Court has already gone too far in letting States enact prohibitive measures.
A federal ban on abortion would be a catastrophic mistake - it should be left up to the states to decide. In my utopian world, aborition would never ever happen. However, the real world can be brutal. All types of people in this country partake in extremely reckless and irresponsible behavior that leads to babies being born into familes that can't raise them. I'm willing to listen to an abortion-ban law, provided that there is a rock solid plan to take care of all these new children in need. Since I don't believe that such a plan could work properly, I think at least some states MUST allow it so people have the option to travel there if necessary.
No it should not be left up to the States. It should be settled law that it is and actually the Court has already gone too far in letting States enact prohibitive measures.
Agree totally.
We'll see if Judge K sees it as settled law when he joins the SC. I think our biggest concerns will be realized & actualized. Remember Emperor Don's campaign promise.
I agree with both of you at the end of the day. Am I wrong to believe that Roe v. Wade could be overturned? I was under the impression that Kavanaugh's vote could overturn the decision, should a case get that far. Should that horrible news happen, I'd want states to be able to legalize it as they wish.
I agree with both of you at the end of the day. Am I wrong to believe that Roe v. Wade could be overturned? I was under the impression that Kavanaugh's vote could overturn the decision, should a case get that far. Should that horrible news happen, I'd want states to be able to legalize it as they wish.
Well I agree that it could be overturned but the manner they would likely use to overturn it would be exactly that. To allow States to put restrictions on it as they wish. Which is pretty much happening already and in some of those States it is already difficult for poor women to have access.
in some of those States it is already difficult for poor women to have access.
Are condoms expensive?
Are condoms expensive?
I think he was referring to access to abortion, not contraceptives.
Are condoms expensive?
I think he was referring to access to abortion, not contraceptives.
I know what he was referencing, it was an inference to the easy accessibility of condoms, versus the worry of an Abortion being available.
Otherwise known as sarcasm.
Well I agree that it could be overturned but the manner they would likely use to overturn it would be exactly that. To allow States to put restrictions on it as they wish. Which is pretty much happening already and in some of those States it is already difficult for poor women to have access.
Which doesn't make any sense to me. If a state makes access to abortion more difficult in poor communities, and more babies are born as a result, the state will create a larger financial burden for itself. The rich communities won't need or qualify for any public assistance.
Based on these current allegations of sexual assault, Mr. Kavanaugh might be in some trouble.
On what grounds?
A guy from my school had a reputation for strange advances as I was told by 2 different girls. I’ve watched the news thru adulthood wondering if he’s gonna pop up charged cause he “done things with its skin” or some twisted stuff like that.
In this case there are lots of sketchy details , young teens, excessive amounts of alcohol, and a hazy recollection which is understandable since it happened over 3 decades ago. If this trumps a stellar career and spotless record than its a dangerous precedent.
Turns out there is a hypnotist as part of this sideshow as well....
[Edited on 9/19/2018 by OriginalGoober]
Wasnt there a movie starring Al Pacino or Robin Williams that captured this prep school culture?
In this case there are lots of sketchy details , young teens, excessive amounts of alcohol, and a hazy recollection
Which should disqualify him since there are qualified candidates who rose above that as a teen.
In this case there are lots of sketchy details , young teens, excessive amounts of alcohol, and a hazy recollection
Which should disqualify him since there are qualified candidates who rose above that as a teen.
Even Feinstein has said there are concerns about this being truthful
Ya think?
Judge K seems to be perfect for Team Trump. There seems to be a pattern in play with actions towards women for Team Trump. These are men who seem to treat women with great respect and decency. 😛
The list includes the following:
Emperor Don
Roy Moore
Rob Porter
Bret Kavanaugh
In this case there are lots of sketchy details , young teens, excessive amounts of alcohol, and a hazy recollection
Which should disqualify him since there are qualified candidates who rose above that as a teen.
Sorry... you dont get to ruin someone's career over an unfounded allegation. You just don't..... There better be some proof or evidence available or too bad for you... Even if it happened. without proof, witnesses or video, you have no power to destroy someones career over telling some half-baked story. We will see in this case whether it meets a credible standard.
it is credible but Feinstein made a mistake holding it back.
it won't matter as it was 35-6 yrs ago.
it will get out of committee.
will they vote up or down in the senate.......prob down, for other reasons.
Sorry... you dont get to ruin someone's career over an unfounded allegation. You just don't..
Ruin a career? LOL!!! He would be a wealthy American without a Supreme Court seat. “Ruined”, lol. Oh Goob, you are so sensitive.
In this case there are lots of sketchy details , young teens, excessive amounts of alcohol, and a hazy recollection which is understandable since it happened over 3 decades ago. If this trumps a stellar career and spotless record than its a dangerous precedent.
Turns out there is a hypnotist as part of this sideshow as well....
No, this is not a case (not "sideshow") of a "recovered" memory; the victim's memory of the incident has always been clear - not "hazy" - haunting her.
Why not mention it earlier? 1) Because he wasn't a SCOTUS nominee just a rich white boy who became a rich white Old Boy and 2) the victim's character is always questioned. Why does any rape/sexual assault victim keep quiet? Do you have to ask?
Last I knew, excessive alcohol merely loosens pre-existing inhibitions at any age. We've learned nothing about sexual harassment & assault in the 27 years since Thomas hearings when the "dangerous precedent" was set.
Sorry... you dont get to ruin someone's career over an unfounded allegation. You just don't.....
Are you referring to the Cooked Hillary Lock Her Up thing? Or any number of patently absurd and destructive slanders toward whomever? Your boy in the White House wrote the book on character assassination and weaponized defamation.
You DO get to ruin people with unfounded allegations. YOU JUST DO....
LOL!
Sorry... you dont get to ruin someone's career over an unfounded allegation. You just don't.....
Are you referring to the Cooked Hillary Lock Her Up thing? Or any number of patently absurd and destructive slanders toward whomever? Your boy in the White House wrote the book on character assassination and weaponized defamation.
You DO get to ruin people with unfounded allegations. YOU JUST DO....
LOL!
Exactly. The president himself has thrown the rules out.
