I found it odd that Collins was so vocal about it. A simple "I viewed the evidence and the testimony and will vote yes on Kavanaugh" would have gotten the job done.
Kavanaugh and #me too
- Thread starter donnie_baseball
- Start date
I found it odd that Collins was so vocal about it. A simple "I viewed the evidence and the testimony and will vote yes on Kavanaugh" would have gotten the job done.
That’s what they do there. Spartacus, in his Spartacus moment, didn’t need to be so dramatic either.
She reviewed his judicial record. I preferred hearing that vs analyzing his lexicon relative to drinking games and farts.
I have no issue with her Spartacus moment. However, considering she was listed as an undecided senator her response just seemed strong. As an example, Manchin, Murkowski and Flake were considerably less Bookertacus in their announcements. Anyone who would call Collins "the adult in the room" based on that partisan speech isn't paying attention.
Beautiful. In essence you're saying that unsubstantiated allegations should negate any nomination for any office. Let's keep that in mind the next time one of your kind nominates someone
The notion that any woman that comes forward with an allegation of sexual assault has to be true just because she's bringing it forward is dangerous.
On the flip side we have a long way to go until we eradicate sexual misconduct on woman.
I think Senator Collins said it better than I did.
Don’t you mean political, partisan Ginsburg, the kind dems purport to hate?
Collins was one of the few Senators that actually met with Kavanaugh (for several hours) and brought it back to his opinions and rulings. It’s pretty obvious that it was a calculated move by her and Republicans to give that speech.
Her testimony was credible. And even Trump said that at one point. No corroboration perhaps. We won’t know. I have said before that Judge should have been subpoenaed before the Senate Committee. That was the proper way to conduct this.
However, let’s be clear. The Avenatti accuser did not seem credible at all and would not have been an allegation to cloud his nomination. But Ford testimony was credible and she talked about this atttack years ago.
Yes any cloud like that and you don’t get the honor to be one of Justices. This lowered the bar for this appointment and that cannot be denied.
Politics cern. Politics...If this was shared with the committee months ago, they could have handed out all the subpoenas and done all the investigations to your liking. They waited until the very end because that was the only chance to turn the nomination upside down.
I think we all would have liked to see the infamous therapist “notes”. Pretty obvious that there was no mention of Kavanaugh specifically, but we’ll never know.
That may very well be true that the this could have been shared some time ago. However, let’s not make it out to be months. Feinstein received the letter July 30th. It’s not revealed till sometime in mid September. We are only talking about 6 weeks. I would guess that the Dems were trying to spring this at the last minute to delay. However, that is not a reason not to believe this woman or take the allegations seriously.
Whether you like it or not, Kavanagh is tainted and should have withdrawn his name from consideration. To be on the Supreme Court or Attorney General, you need to be squeaky clean and yes that eliminates a lot of qualified people.
Sorry cern, they could have completely investigated the allegations if they followed procedures and didn’t withhold the information which was what you wanted. Politics, pure politics. Why not disclose the therapist notes?
Agree. However, that doesn't mean since the Dems played games we can ignore a legitimate claim which clouds this nomination. Again, any credible cloud over a nominee disqualifies that nominee to sit on the Supreme Court.
Remember there was an Attorney General pick that I believe was a Clinton appointee. She was knocked out cause she didn't pay social security taxes on her nanny. This is an extremely minor violation. However, any cloud that hangs over someone in these positions and the nominee must be withdrawn. That is how it should work.
While the Dems played Politics, the Republicans devalued and lowered the bar and the prestige of the Supreme Court.
I think cern is making some excellent points -- no need to rub his face in it. One thing I wonder about though: You feel that a SCOTUS nominee should be beyond reproach, and I agree. You said in the next sentence that if this popped up on a background check for a candidate for your firm, you would pass? So someone who wasn't even charged with anything 35 years ago should never work again? In that era, I can't recall frequent use of the phrase "sexual assault." It was rape or it wasn't, and no one was raped.
The issue for me is there was never anything legitimate or credible, I doubt any prosecutor would ever bring charges, and I can't believe an officer of the court would be so flippant as to give credence to such unfounded accusations.
If you are working in a firm, I don’t think these allegations would prevent work. But, if you are working for law enforcement, US Attorney, Attorney General or a DA or Proscutors Office, it is disqualifying. The confusion people have is that this is not a criminal case. No one is saying that it’s enough for a criminal prosecution. It’s about the job. And no cloud should ever hang around someone who has one of these jobs.
No one has a problem with allegations against priests that come out decades later in a he said he said thing. But here we do.
Last edited:
I really thought it was too big a cloud for him to get the votes. I was wrong. I was appalled by the process and political reputation lynching that went on. I am appalled at the guilty until proven innocent approach which is very dangerous for our society. And upset at the way Feinstein took the nuclear option and went public. Neither Ford or Kavanaugh deserved this process. It was intended to rile up the liberals and help in the midterms and squash this candidate. Feinstein should be brought up on ethics charges IMO but she got almost all she wanted in the end.
With all that said, Coney Barrett should have been the nominee from the start IMO. They got the white male on the bench in Gorsuch who was also much more impressive than Kavanaugh. They should have helped themselves and at least appointed a woman. That is where the Repubs made their big mistake. Kavanaugh was a hot potato because of his part is the Starr investigation and part of the Bush administration. They knew him and he was in fact too political. He will always be tainted in the future because of these charges I believe. He is a crucial vote but he is not gonna get asked to speak at a University or other things that usually happen for SC Justices and will not get the respect some of the others have. Once a man is accused of sexual assault rightfully or wrongfully, that will stay with him for life and that is rough stuff if he didn't do it (which we will never know). Hopefully he turns out to be a good justice. Nothing in his professional record was indicative of a man that took advantage of his position with women or anyone else. But IMO the Repubs should have pushed another candidate from the start. That is my summary take on all of this for whatever its worth.
With all that said, Coney Barrett should have been the nominee from the start IMO. They got the white male on the bench in Gorsuch who was also much more impressive than Kavanaugh. They should have helped themselves and at least appointed a woman. That is where the Repubs made their big mistake. Kavanaugh was a hot potato because of his part is the Starr investigation and part of the Bush administration. They knew him and he was in fact too political. He will always be tainted in the future because of these charges I believe. He is a crucial vote but he is not gonna get asked to speak at a University or other things that usually happen for SC Justices and will not get the respect some of the others have. Once a man is accused of sexual assault rightfully or wrongfully, that will stay with him for life and that is rough stuff if he didn't do it (which we will never know). Hopefully he turns out to be a good justice. Nothing in his professional record was indicative of a man that took advantage of his position with women or anyone else. But IMO the Repubs should have pushed another candidate from the start. That is my summary take on all of this for whatever its worth.
cern, Let me start off by saying as I had said before I would much prefer Coney Barrett to be the choice. But this whole process has stunk from start to finish. I truly believe that as time goes on this allegation is going to prove to be a sham. There is nothing in Kavanaugh‘s professional track record that points to this behavior, in fact his record for hiring, promoting and treating woman is impeccable.
There are two things that Ford pointed to in her allegations, both of which were never confirmed. She told her husband. Was he ever interviewed under oath? And the therapist notes would have clearly been the smoking gun, but we will never know what they said. I doubt his name is anywhere to be found.
And now Pelosi is talking about impeachment. What a crock.
This is equally dangerous. Do we want a society where the most qualified people get the position or should gender, race, etc play a role? I've said many times that I think Comey Barrett should have been nominated. But I've also stated Kavanaugh seems to be the most qualified. But when I think about it, I don't want discrimination against women, however I don't want like the idea of just handing a position to a woman over a more qualified male.
I'm not sure if it's equally dangerous or if Kav is more qualified but I understand your point 100%. The fact is the court shouldn't be so political and Kavanaugh was involved in what many say was a highly partisan Starr investigation even though Clinton's own behavior brought it on. And Kavanaugh was part of the Bush administration as well. None of that should be disqualifying, but females are 50% of the population give or take the last time I checked and the court should be representative of the American population. I think both were qualified but I still believe she would have been the better of the two at this time. Just my personal opinion. I'm not in the legal profession and maybe you are and you can point out why he is more qualified than Coney Barrett.
I'm not in the legal profession, but when they announced the options and her name was mentioned both CNN and Fox said she is not as experienced as most of the others. I don't believe she has much more than a year on the appeals court. She doesn't have a large number of opinions out there.
Barrett's perceived threat to Roe V. Wade would likely bring an opposition fiercer than what we saw for Kavanaugh. Combine that with her short time on the Appeals court and she would have been cast as being selected for the sole purpose of overturning Roe V. Wade.
She would then be accused of child molestation and since anyone who is accused is probably guilty, she is therefore unfit to serve.
She would then be accused of child molestation and since anyone who is accused is probably guilty, she is therefore unfit to serve.
Hey liberals. How about that Brett Kavanaugh? Oh, and first all-female Supreme Court team he hired.
Next: radical Ginsburg
Oh, hey where is Blasey Ford - The has-been file as well as Swetnick.
Next: radical Ginsburg
Oh, hey where is Blasey Ford - The has-been file as well as Swetnick.
Similar threads
