Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

(09-13-2018, 11:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Neither does your response.



Another pathetic attempt to lobby for someone to be banned.  Sad.


Good day to you.

I've been told to stay on topic more and attack the poster less. Thought I was being helpful.  I don't want anyone banned...I want them to contribute and engage in meaningful ways.

Oh well.

I wonder if someone shouldn't have asked Kavanaugh if he was judicate a case where 100,000 documents were still not seen yet.

Or if the GOP will show actual concern for whatever Feinstein presented to the FBI or just ramrod the nomination through next week?

(That's not an actual question.  We all know they will force this through as quickly as possible.)

[Vlad]

(09-13-2018, 08:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think she is telling the truth.

What do you think about it?

You mean telling the truth about submitting dirt to the Feds?....sure.

Submitting evidence that alleges Kavanaugh had some sort of an episode of sexual misconduct WHILE IN HIGH SCHOOL is pathetetic, is what I think about it.

Wouldn't you agree?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-14-2018, 05:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder if someone shouldn't have asked Kavanaugh if he was judicate a case where 100,000 documents were still not seen yet.

Or if the GOP will show actual concern for whatever Feinstein presented to the FBI or just ramrod the nomination through next week?

(That's not an actual question.  We all know they will force this through as quickly as possible.)

It's rather obvious that Feinstein's "new information" is a an attempt to delay a confirmation vote.  If she had it all this time then why wait to release it until now?  Lastly, if it's about something he did in High School, unless it's horrifically criminal, it shouldn't matter at all.  Unless the Dem's new position is that people don't grow and mature from adolescence into adulthood, i.e. the very bedrock of the juvenile justice system.

[GMDino]

(09-14-2018, 08:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's rather obvious that Feinstein's "new information" is a an obvious attempt to delay a confirmation vote.  If she had it all this time then why wait to release it until now?  Lastly, if it's about something he did in High School, unless it's horrifically criminal, it shouldn't matter at all.  Unless the Dem's new position is that people don't grow and mature from adolescence into adulthood, i.e. the very bedrock of the juvenile justice system.

I think the last minute release came after a lot of pressure on her.

If it turns out to be nothing then she was right to not want to pass it along.

However we don't know anything about it except what a few democrats have said and that the lawyer allegedly representing the author is prominent in the #metoo movement.

It might have nothing to do with anything sexual.

However I think that if there is a legitimate reason to investigate the matter the vote should be delayed.  A rape allegation at 18 might not be horrific to some, but to a man getting approved to hold a job for life should be completely cleared first.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-14-2018, 09:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think the last minute release came after a lot of pressure on her.

If it turns out to be nothing then she was right to not want to pass it along.

You're seriously buying this explanation?

Quote:However we don't know anything about it except what a few democrats have said and that the lawyer allegedly representing the author is prominent in the #metoo movement.

It might have nothing to do with anything sexual.

Quite honestly, unless the allegations or of a very serious nature, and this doesn't seem likely as nothing was apparently done about them when they were first made, then this is an obvious ploy to delay the final vote.  The timing couldn't make this anymore apparent.

Quote:However I think that if there is a legitimate reason to investigate the matter the vote should be delayed.  A rape allegation at 18 might not be horrific to some, but to a man getting approved to hold a job for life should be completely cleared first.

Do you know how many hours of work went into to vetting this man's background?  Again, the likelihood of this being of any real importance is small to say the least.

[GMDino]

(09-14-2018, 09:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're seriously buying this explanation?

The facts are she had it and didn't release it until now.

(09-14-2018, 09:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite honestly, unless the allegations or of a very serious nature, and this doesn't seem likely as nothing was apparently done about them when they were first made, then this is an obvious ploy to delay the final vote.  The timing couldn't make this anymore apparent.

That's conjecture and it may end up being true. We'll have to "wait and see" if the FBI considered it anything else.

(09-14-2018, 09:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do you know how many hours of work went into to vetting this man's background?  Again, the likelihood of this being of any real importance is small to say the least.

I know he was vetted. That doesn't mean there wasn't something they missed. Or might be nothing. But, again, he's going to get this job for life. If there is a question it needs answered.

[Belsnickel]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I do know there have been a lot of discussions elsewhere about Kavanaugh being less than truthful in front of the committee during the hearings. I don't necessarily agree with the perjury claims, but I am of the opinion that an appointment to the highest court in our country is out of the question is this is the case.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-14-2018, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: The facts are she had it and didn't release it until now.  




That's conjecture and it may end up being true.  We'll have to "wait and see" if the FBI considered it anything else.



I know he was vetted.  That doesn't mean there wasn't something they missed.  Or might be nothing.  But, again, he's going to get this job for life.  If there is a question it needs answered.

I'm curious as to why this would be an FBI thing.  

[GMDino]

(09-14-2018, 09:50 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm curious as to why this would be an FBI thing.  

Me too.  (No pun intended.)

Unless it is because it falls on them to vet these nominees in the first place?

That's the reason I thought of.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-14-2018, 10:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: Me too.  (No pun intended.)

Unless it is because it falls on them to vet these nominees in the first place?

That's the reason I thought of.

Probably.

[Benton]

(09-14-2018, 09:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I do know there have been a lot of discussions elsewhere about Kavanaugh being less than truthful in front of the committee during the hearings. I don't necessarily agree with the perjury claims, but I am of the opinion that an appointment to the highest court in our country is out of the question is this is the case.

That's where I'm at. One of the issues in question is lying in 2004 about something he did in 2003. A year later, you should remember most of the details of your job. Honesty/integrity is one of the qualities I hold highest in a judge. 

[GMDino]

So, according to this, it is an accusation of attempted rape while in high school.

I guess they have to look at it.

I found this bit just a little amusing though:

Quote:Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also released a letter Friday morning from 65 women who said they supported Kavanaugh.

Glad he was able to round that up on such short notice.  

[fredtoast]

(09-13-2018, 09:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think she's trying to delay. 

You mean like the Republicans delayed to keep Garland off the bench?


Yes, that could be her motive.

[Goalpost]

(09-14-2018, 12:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean like the Republicans delayed to keep Garland off the bench?


Yes, that could be her motive.

Garland wasn't nominated because by the time Obama was lame duck, his party was in the minority.  If the Dems had won elections then Garland is there.  So this is a we lost and didn't get what we wanted argument.  Wasn't there a midterm where some Dems didn't want Obama's endorsement and they lost anyway.  

[Benton]

(09-14-2018, 12:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: Glad he was able to round that up on such short notice.  

Quote:Rumors of this letter and sexual misconduct allegations have been swirling for weeks on Capitol Hill, with reporters and other Democratic senators pressing Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, to share the information. 

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 12:56 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Garland wasn't nominated because by the time Obama was lame duck, his party was in the minority.  If the Dems had won elections then Garland is there.  So this is a we lost and didn't get what we wanted argument.  Wasn't there a midterm where some Dems didn't want Obama's endorsement and they lost anyway.  

The Republicans refused to approve the nomination because they claimed there was an upcoming election and "the will of the voters should decide".


Now there is an election upcoming so shouldn't the approval be delayed to let "the will of the voters to decide" this time also?

[GMDino]

I would have used the   but the   doesn't work.  

[*PhilHos*]

(09-14-2018, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: The facts are she had it and didn't release it until now.  

Then wouldn't she be guilty of obstruction of justice?

[*PhilHos*]

(09-14-2018, 12:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean like the Republicans delayed to keep Garland off the bench?


Yes, that could be her motive.

Can I assume that you have no problem with Fienstien trying to delay the nomination? And that you equally had no problem with the Republicans delaying Garland's nomination?

[*PhilHos*]

(09-14-2018, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Republicans refused to approve the nomination because they claimed there was an upcoming election and "the will of the voters should decide".


Now there is an election upcoming so shouldn't the approval be delayed to let "the will of the voters to decide" this time also?

Personally, I think a nomination should go through the process with no intentional delays. With that said, there is a precedent for waiting and so I can say the Republicans don't have much of a leg to stand on (through their own fault, too).