Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[homersapien 11,440]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Twitter intellect? Interesting.

Twitter is a medium.  Its not an "intellect".

But, it is certainly capable of referring to, or containing an intellectual idea. 

But then, it also communicates Trump's thoughts. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Twitter is a medium.  Its not an "intellect".

Please tell me that was intended to be comical. Geez homes.

[homersapien 11,440]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Please tell me that was intended to be comical. Geez homes.

Sorry, but I can't lie-  or more accurately - I choose not to.  

[DKW 86 7,440]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

 

 

THIS is why I left the Republican Party back in 2005. It was obvious to me that this was where we were headed.

Folks, this is bankruptcy of your position when you ignore all the disqualifiers just to see the party win.

This is what happened at Chappaquiddick. The vast majority of Dems sold out decency for party. The Republicans in this poll did the same thing. 

[bigbird 60,580]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

THIS is why I left the Republican Party back in 2005. It was obvious to me that this was where we were headed.

Folks, this is bankruptcy of your position when you ignore all the disqualifiers just to see the party win.

This is what happened at Chappaquiddick. The vast majority of Dems sold out decency for party. The Republicans in this poll did the same thing. 

To me, if they were proven false, all of those numbers would move except one category.  Guess which one.

[savorytiger 182]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

To me, if they were proven false, all of those numbers would move except one category.  Guess which one.

I see where you're coming from, but it seems more reasonable that Democrats would disagree with a nomination based on a difference in beliefs than Republicans supporting a nominee even if there is proof of sexual assault...

[bigbird 60,580]

32 minutes ago, savorytiger said:

I see where you're coming from, but it seems more reasonable that Democrats would disagree with a nomination based on a difference in beliefs than Republicans supporting a nominee even if there is proof of sexual assault...

But them Dems seem to be opposed period. Not because of anything that has or hasn't been shown. Before the accusation the number oppsed was more than likely the same. The accusation just disguises their opposition.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

But them Dems seem to be opposed period. Not because of anything that has or hasn't been shown. Before the accusation the number oppsed was more than likely the same. The accusation just disguises their opposition.

Is opposition suddenly wrong? If it is let’s just confirm Merrick Garland. 

[savorytiger 182]

Just now, bigbird said:

But them Dems seem to be opposed period. Not because of anything that has or hasn't been shown. Before the accusation the number oppsed was more than likely the same. The accusation just disguises their opposition.

The US is in a pretty divided state.  I think it's just as likely that if the situation was reversed (Democratic president, democratic nominee) that Republicans would feel the same way.  Is there really any evidence that one side or the other is "more" partisan than the other?  Would it be a huge waste of time to try to debate that?  Probably :P.

[bigbird 60,580]

6 minutes ago, savorytiger said:

The US is in a pretty divided state.  I think it's just as likely that if the situation was reversed (Democratic president, democratic nominee) that Republicans would feel the same way.  Is there really any evidence that one side or the other is "more" partisan than the other?  Would it be a huge waste of time to try to debate that?  Probably :P.

100% correct and that in lies the problem.  It doesn't matter merit or qualifications. If one side nominates, then the other digs in and, no matter what, oppose.

[bigbird 60,580]

7 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Is opposition suddenly wrong? If it is let’s just confirm Merrick Garland. 

Yes, opposition for opposition sake is wrong.   If you oppose, do so on the merits not because of the letter in front of their name.  In BK's case, no matter what 10 Dems would have voted no before and after the accusation. It's not like 3 or 4 of them were going to recommend and all of a sudden had a change of heart after the accusation.

[homersapien 11,440]

7 minutes ago, bigbird said:

100% correct and that in lies the problem.  It doesn't matter merit or qualifications. If one side nominates, then the other digs in and, no matter what, oppose.

You can largely thank McConnell for that.

Again, I think Republicans totally underestimate the effects of such things as the McConnell's refusing a Garland hearing and earlier announcing his primary goal was to defeat Obama.  That took the political division in this country to a whole new level.

[bigbird 60,580]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

You can largely thank McConnell for that.

Again, I think Republicans totally underestimate the effects of such things as the McConnell's refusing a Garland hearing and earlier announcing his primary goal was to defeat Obama.  That took the political division in this country to a whole new level.

There are multiple instances on both sides of the aisle. Their are no blameless players in this tragety.  

One thing that is interesting is this, since the Thomas nomination, the nominees nominated by a democratic president have passed by votes of 96-3(Ginsburg), 87-9(Breyer), 68-31(Sotomayor), and 63-37(Kagen) while those nominated by Republican presidents are 52-48(Thomas), 78-22(Roberts), 58-42(Alito), 54-45(Gorsuch).  Besides Roberts, each Republican nominee has been a vote pretty much down party lines. While the democratic nominees seem to be a much more impartial/non-political vote.  Why is that?

[homersapien 11,440]

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

There are multiple instances on both sides of the aisle. Their are no blameless players in this tragety.  

One thing that is interesting is this, since the Thomas nomination, the nominees nominated by a democratic president have passed by votes of 96-3(Ginsburg), 87-9(Breyer), 68-31(Sotomayor), and 63-37(Kagen) while those nominated by Republican presidents are 52-48(Thomas), 78-22(Roberts), 58-42(Alito), 54-45(Gorsuch).  Besides Roberts, each Republican nominee has been a vote pretty much down party lines. While the democratic nominees seem to be a much more impartial/non-political vote.  Why is that?

I concede the partisan divide has been getting worse over the last few decades for various reasons, but McConnell essentially "formalized" or "codified" it in a blatant way, IMO.

I don't really accept that Democratic nominees get a more impartial process as evidenced by those vote tallys. They could just as well indicate Democrats nominate more moderate or less extreme candidates.

[bigbird 60,580]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

I don't really accept that Democratic nominees get a more impartial process as evidenced by those vote tallys. They could just as well indicate Democrats nominate more moderate or less extreme candidates.

Yeah, Ginsberg and Sotomayer are the bastion of moderacy.

 

This is how I would rank it, what about you?

-10 Thomas
-9
-8 Alito, Gorsuch
-7
-6
-5
-4 Roberts
-3
-2
-1
0 Kennedy
+1
+2
+3 Kagan
+4
+5
+6 Breyer
+7
+8
+9 Ginsburg
+10 Sotomayor

 

I'd prefer justices towards the center that don't mind voting against their "party", but their extreme opinions , one way or the other, don't disqualify them.

[homersapien 11,440]

43 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Yeah, Ginsberg and Sotomayer are the bastion of moderacy.

 

This is how I would rank it, what about you?

-10 Thomas
-9
-8 Alito, Gorsuch
-7
-6
-5
-4 Roberts
-3
-2
-1
0 Kennedy
+1
+2
+3 Kagan
+4
+5
+6 Breyer
+7
+8
+9 Ginsburg
+10 Sotomayor

The Ginsberg and Sotomayor rankings seem rather arbitrary to me. 

Perhaps one could conduct an analysis of all rulings and rank the members from the most conservative to the most liberal, but sticking them on a scale -  much less the liberal extreme on that scale  - means nothing without that analysis.

If they are so "liberal", there should be examples of their rulings that demonstrate it.  What are those rulings?  Are there any 7-2 rulings with those two dissenting?

I stand by my original statement regarding the interpretation of the vote tallys.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

The Ginsberg and Sotomayor rankings seem rather arbitrary to me. 

That’s becuase you don’t read their opinions, obviously.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, bigbird said:

Yeah, Ginsberg and Sotomayer are the bastion of moderacy.

 

This is how I would rank it, what about you?

-10 Thomas
-9
-8 Alito, Gorsuch
-7
-6
-5
-4 Roberts
-3
-2
-1
0 Kennedy
+1
+2
+3 Kagan
+4
+5
+6 Breyer
+7
+8
+9 Ginsburg
+10 Sotomayor

 

I'd prefer justices towards the center that don't mind voting against their "party", but their extreme opinions , one way or the other, don't disqualify them.

I would put Ginsburg next to Soto. I would’ve put Scalia next to Thomas, if he was still serving. Scalia ventured some, but it was always notable because it was so rare. Same with Ginsburg.

[homersapien 11,440]

33 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That’s becuase you don’t read their opinions, obviously.

I was referring to ranking the Supreme Court Justices on a 20 point scale, with people plotted at extremes, which is subjective hyperbole.

I don't have trouble with ranking them per se',  its applying qualitative values to those rankings.  I believe such quantitative constructions - particularly without a detailed case - are just graphical representations of one's bias.

But that's just me.

 

[homersapien 11,440]

38 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That’s becuase you don’t read their opinions, obviously.

Edit your posts.

And are you volunteering to present us with such an analysis?

[homersapien 11,440]

34 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I would put Ginsburg next to Soto. I would’ve put Scalia next to Thomas, if he was still serving. Scalia ventured some, but it was always notable because it was so rare. Same with Ginsburg.

You mean on that same scale?

[DKW 86 7,440]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

I concede the partisan divide has been getting worse over the last few decades for various reasons, but McConnell essentially "formalized" or "codified" it in a blatant way, IMO.

I don't really accept that Democratic nominees get a more impartial process as evidenced by those vote tallys. They could just as well indicate Democrats nominate more moderate or less extreme candidates.

1

[homersapien 11,440]

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

 

You disagree David?  Please tell us why.

Or are you just trying to back up Nola -  yap yap! 

(Same for you big bird, since you seemed to approve.)

[DKW 86 7,440]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You disagree David?  Please tell us why.

"They could just as well indicate Democrats nominate more moderate or less extreme candidates."

In the dictionary next to the term "Party Lacky" or "Political Sycophant" is your picture...

There is zero difference between these two parties. ZERO. Any party associated with Antifa, Code Pink, etc etc etc is just as radical as any other party. RBG and SSM are less extreme than Thomas or Alito or Scalia??? GMAFB! <smdh>

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

I was referring to ranking the Supreme Court Justices on a 20 point scale, with people plotted at extremes, which is subjective hyperbole.

I don't have trouble with ranking them per se',  its applying qualitative values to those rankings.  I believe such quantitative constructions - particularly without a detailed case - are just graphical representations of one's bias.

But that's just me.

 

You wouldn’t demand such a “quantitative construction” if you read their opinions. 

You sound goofy.