Post Confirmation Thread

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

We have had a general Kavanaugh thread and one on the JC Hearing. So let's have a new one as we move forward following the confirmation. Who do you think the winners and losers are now that circus is maybe over.?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Biggest Winner:  Mitch McConnell is the biggest one.  His gamble in 2016 just paid off huge.  He can retire tomorrow and be a conservative hero for decades.  Probably the most effective Senator of my time.

Biggest Loser:  Women and other sexual assault survivors.  Our elected officials just basically said that their concerns and voices don't matter.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

53 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Biggest Winner:  Mitch McConnell is the biggest one.  His gamble in 2016 just paid off huge.  He can retire tomorrow and be a conservative hero for decades.  Probably the most effective Senator of my time.

Biggest Loser:  Women and other sexual assault survivors.  Our elected officials just basically said that their concerns and voices don't matter.

Depends on how you define effective. He’s certainly wrecked the credibility of all three branches of government.

[Zeek 16,660]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Women and other sexual assault survivors.  Our elected officials just basically said that their concerns and voices don't matter.

I don't remotely get this narrative. Honestly asking, how in the world you see it this way? Kavanaugh's individual situation doesn't reflect on all women and sexual assault survivors. Ford had no proof, no evidence, no details, an inconsistent narrative, and a lack of corroboration. All the women cornering senator and screeching at them about being assaulted had nothing to do with Kavanaugh or his nomination.

Ultimately, regardless of what we want to believe as individuals one thing supersedes our own opinions. 1) Innocent until proven guilty is still the standard in the United States and thank God for that being the case. 2) The entire argument about whether or not Kavanaugh did this is "he said, she said" and he frankly had more things going for him in his corner.

I just think saying that their concerns and voices don't matter is extremely hyperbolic. This wasn't a "statement" against anyone as much as it was a confirmation that an allegation from decades ago with no proof doesn't trump a qualified judge. Watch when Ruth leaves the court the next judge nominated will get the exact same treatment from a different angle. 

 

Winners: Kavanaugh, and the idea that we're all innocent until proven guilty. Republicans being rejuvenated and more enthusiastic about the midterms. A;; the protesters bank accounts. Mitch McConnell.

Losers: The entire senate for making this a s*** show, Dems in the midterms look weaker after taking this loss, and it's obvious the leadership of the Dems is downright terrible (Hillary, Bernie, Schumer, Pelosi, are all about as likeable as a thumb tack in the heel).

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, Zeek said:

I don't remotely get this narrative. Honestly asking, how in the world you see it this way? 

I see it like that because 90%+ of sexual assault cases are he said/she said.  Very few times is there "proof or corroboration" to the point that it would satisfy most, but the overwheming majority of those times the accuser is in the right.  It's a big reason why sexual assualt goes unreported.  I believe that our elected officials basically just discouraged other future sexual assault victims from coming forward because to those legislators, it simply doesn't matter as long as a political goal is achievable.

[Zeek 16,660]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

I see it like that because 90%+ of sexual assault cases are he said/she said.  Very few times is there "proof or corroboration" to the point that it would satisfy most, but the overwheming majority of those times the accuser is in the right.  It's a big reason why sexual assualt goes unreported.  I believe that our elected officials basically just discouraged other future sexual assault victims from coming forward because to those legislators, it simply doesn't matter as long as a political goal is achievable.

I just think that's dangerous logic Brad. So what's your alternative? Assume, because we can't know without better proof, that Kavanaugh is guilty and deny him the position solely for that? That would encourage both parties to drag up accusers for every nomination of every position in politics. Not disagreeing with you about the problems surrounding sexual assault but I don't think there is a realistic scenario to solve it by simply believing accusers by default. That's a very dangerous approach.

Unfortunately if you have no witnesses, dna, evidence, no corroboration, and you don't report it as soon as possible then in our current reality not much more can be done. Again I don't like it either but the alternative is as or even more so dangerous then the current situation.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, Zeek said:

I just think that's dangerous logic Brad. So what's your alternative? Assume, because we can't know without better proof, that Kavanaugh is guilty and deny him the position solely for that? That would encourage both parties to drag up accusers for every nomination of every position in politics. Not disagreeing with you about the problems surrounding sexual assault but I don't think there is a realistic scenario to solve it by simply believing accusers by default. That's a very dangerous approach.

Unfortunately if you have no witnesses, dna, evidence, no corroboration, and you don't report it as soon as possible then in our current reality not much more can be done. Again I don't like it either but the alternative is as or even more so dangerous then the current situation.

Well if we're assuming that Kavanaugh is guilty (as you stated), then yes, he should have been denied for sexual assault.  I think you're playing a slippery slope argument.  There's no evidence that every nominee would be charged with assault from someone.  It didn't happen with Gorsuch.  In fact, the only other time I remember it happening was Thomas.

[Zeek 16,660]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well if we're assuming that Kavanaugh is guilty (as you stated), then yes, he should have been denied for sexual assault.  I think you're playing a slippery slope argument.  There's no evidence that every nominee would be charged with assault from someone.  It didn't happen with Gorsuch.  In fact, the only other time I remember it happening was Thomas.

If you show it's an effective means to shut someone down I guarantee it would happen even more. I agree he should be denied if guilty but since we can't prove or know that he is then he's assumed innocent. Therefor the only thing that should have been considered is his jurisprudence which we could debate for weeks.

The number of accusers a lot of these politicians have is staggering it's just a matter of which ones get brought into the public eye and which ones have even an ounce of accountability. Look at how many "came out" against Kavanaugh and then ran away when actually questioned and most even completely withdrawing their accusation.

If anyone thinks that either side is above using people as pawns to make accusations with then they're sadly mistaken. Democrats still hoist Bill Clinton up like a God and have actively silenced his accusers for years. Again, innocent until proven otherwise but they can't act so outraged as if they actually care all of a sudden.

I just don't believe there was enough to shut down Kavanaugh's nomination and I think it would have set a bad precedent to do so. Just can't rationalize that this is some massive blow to women and victims of assault unless that narrative gets spread throughout the media.

I like you Brad and I appreciate your polite responses but I'm going to leave at agreeing to disagree about the impact here but I agree that we need to better as a country. 

 

Republicans must do better at diversifying and reconsidering some of their antiquated positions.

Democrats need to move away from their socialist agenda, and quit using tactics that involve slandering anyone against them as "racist", "bigoted", "sexist", and so all the other ists and isms. The more those words are used the less meaning they have.

At some point we have to realize that our current political system is like the defense letting the opposing team score to spite the offense. They need to remember that we're all on the same damn team. Look at policies that have historically worked and follow them. Quit trying policies we know that don't work just to appease voter bases. We can be so much better than this.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I think a lot of folks here think I was opposing him because I don't want a solid conservative majority for a generation.  Or that it's just because I don't like Trump.  While it's true I don't like Trump, getting some better SCOTUS nominees that we'd have gotten with any Democrat is about the only positive I've been able to cling to.  And I liked the Gorsuch pick.  

And I do want a conservative majority for a generation.  But that's one reason why I couldn't understand going to the mat for this guy.  He was shaky.  Not as solidly conservative on the things that matter as other picks.  The accusations against him were very serious, and when given a chance to simply stand up and say "I did drink heavily in HS and college, and as a teen I held some views about sex and women that I grew out of and am not proud of now, none of that makes me a rapist," he chose to try and minimize his drinking and misogynist behavior and make up laughable explanations for things that would contradict that defense.  I couldn't take him seriously.  So to me, he's a shaky pick.  And I'm just praying now that in the end it wasn't true and now that he's through that nothing more comes out or there aren't any other skeletons that could get him impeached and risk the conservative majority we've fought so long for.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, Zeek said:

Republicans must do better at diversifying and reconsidering some of their antiquated positions.

Democrats need to move away from their socialist agenda, and quit using tactics that involve slandering anyone against them as "racist", "bigoted", "sexist", and so all the other ists and isms. The more those words are used the less meaning they have.

At some point we have to realize that our current political system is like the defense letting the opposing team score to spite the offense. They need to remember that we're all on the same damn team. Look at policies that have historically worked and follow them. Quit trying policies we know that don't work just to appease voter bases. We can be so much better than this.

For the record, I agree with everything right here.  WDE Zeek.  I'm done with politics for the day.  We gotta us a game to win and I'm behind on my bourbon consumption!

[Zeek 16,660]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

For the record, I agree with everything right here.  WDE Zeek.  I'm done with politics for the day.  We gotta us a game to win and I'm behind on my bourbon consumption!

At least it's not a week day 😂

War Eagle my guy.

[Zeek 16,660]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think a lot of folks here think I was opposing him because I don't want a solid conservative majority for a generation.  Or that it's just because I don't like Trump.  While it's true I don't like Trump, getting some better SCOTUS nominees that we'd have gotten with any Democrat is about the only positive I've been able to cling to.  And I liked the Gorsuch pick.  

And I do want a conservative majority for a generation.  But that's one reason why I couldn't understand going to the mat for this guy.  He was shaky.  Not as solidly conservative on the things that matter as other picks.  The accusations against him were very serious, and when given a chance to simply stand up and say "I did drink heavily in HS and college, and as a teen I held some views about sex and women that I grew out of and am not proud of now, none of that makes me a rapist," he chose to try and minimize his drinking and misogynist behavior and make up laughable explanations for things that would contradict that defense.  I couldn't take him seriously.  So to me, he's a shaky pick.  And I'm just praying now that in the end it wasn't true and now that he's through that nothing more comes out or there aren't any other skeletons that could get him impeached and risk the conservative majority we've fought so long for.

 

Understood Titan!
FWIW I think Trump stays in and eventually gets to replace Ginsburg who is looking rough at 85 and Breyer isn't much younger at 80. Who from Trump's short list would you like to be nominated next? I know they hate her for being religious, apparently a bad thing these days, but I was really in the Amy C-B corner and I think she'd fly through the process when compared to Kavanaugh.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

1 minute ago, Zeek said:

Understood Titan!
FWIW I think Trump stays in and eventually gets to replace Ginsburg who is looking rough at 85 and Breyer isn't much younger at 80. Who from Trump's short list would you like to be nominated next? I know they hate her for being religious, apparently a bad thing these days, but I was really in the Amy C-B corner and I think she'd fly through the process when compared to Kavanaugh.

I think if Ginsburg steps down, he'll nominate a woman and Barrett would be at the top of that list of female nominee candidates.  If it's Breyer, it's more wide open.  I imagine the list would be headed by Barrett, Kethledge and Hardiman.

[Zeek 16,660]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think if Ginsburg steps down, he'll nominate a woman and Barrett would be at the top of that list of female nominee candidates.  If it's Breyer, it's more wide open.  I imagine the list would be headed by Barrett, Kethledge and Hardiman.

Seems like Ginsburg is holding on to the job just to keep that from happening. My knowledge of SupCo history is pretty limited but what's the biggest majority one party has ever had on the court? Could you imagine a 7-2?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Just now, Zeek said:

Seems like Ginsburg is holding on to the job just to keep that from happening. My knowledge of SupCo history is pretty limited but what's the biggest majority one party has ever had on the court? Could you imagine a 7-2?

She's definitely doing that as is, I imagine, Breyer.  Ginsburg is in great health for her age.  She is very big on good diet and works out daily.

There was a pretty good liberal majority on it for a while, even though some were appointed by Republicans who became liberal while on the court.  I could possibly see one of those two having to step down (or passing away) before 2020, but I'd be floored at both of them.  If Trump/Pence wins in 2020, I don't see how both of them could make it another 4 years.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Would not have picked him. Not in a long while. There had to be better nominees. 

I am afraid Barrett nomination will be just as bad.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

46 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Would not have picked him. Not in a long while. There had to be better nominees. 

I am afraid Barrett nomination will be just as bad.

No confirmation will be as bad as this one.

[caleb1633 1,418]

5 hours ago, Zeek said:

If you show it's an effective means to shut someone down I guarantee it would happen even more. I agree he should be denied if guilty but since we can't prove or know that he is then he's assumed innocent. Therefor the only thing that should have been considered is his jurisprudence which we could debate for weeks.

The number of accusers a lot of these politicians have is staggering it's just a matter of which ones get brought into the public eye and which ones have even an ounce of accountability. Look at how many "came out" against Kavanaugh and then ran away when actually questioned and most even completely withdrawing their accusation.

If anyone thinks that either side is above using people as pawns to make accusations with then they're sadly mistaken. Democrats still hoist Bill Clinton up like a God and have actively silenced his accusers for years. Again, innocent until proven otherwise but they can't act so outraged as if they actually care all of a sudden.

I just don't believe there was enough to shut down Kavanaugh's nomination and I think it would have set a bad precedent to do so. Just can't rationalize that this is some massive blow to women and victims of assault unless that narrative gets spread throughout the media.

I like you Brad and I appreciate your polite responses but I'm going to leave at agreeing to disagree about the impact here but I agree that we need to better as a country. 

 

Republicans must do better at diversifying and reconsidering some of their antiquated positions.

Democrats need to move away from their socialist agenda, and quit using tactics that involve slandering anyone against them as "racist", "bigoted", "sexist", and so all the other ists and isms. The more those words are used the less meaning they have.

At some point we have to realize that our current political system is like the defense letting the opposing team score to spite the offense. They need to remember that we're all on the same damn team. Look at policies that have historically worked and follow them. Quit trying policies we know that don't work just to appease voter bases. We can be so much better than this.

Excellent excellent post! The whole accusation to me was fishy. First of all, it was past the statute of limitations and it happened when they were in high school. The charges against him would've been a misdemeanor. Furthermore, he was in HIGH SCHOOL! Not saying what he allegedly did was okay, but ultimately, if true, he was a kid who did something stupid while he was drunk one night. Thank God I'm not judged to this day for dumb crap I did in High School. I never did anything close to what he was accused of, but certainly things that could kill my image. The whole thing wreaked of a political smear campaign; a poorly executed smear campaign that likely did far more damage to the democrats than they realize.

The situation isn't a loss for women's rights. We just saw Bill Cosby go to prison for sexual misconduct, and Roy Moore didn't get elected based on similar accusations which surrounded Kavanagh. Justice is being served in sexual assault cases, including ones which have aged considerably. This is a victory for, I'll say a dirty phrase, "Mens rights." I have known good men whose lives and careers have been negatively impacted due to faulty, unsubstantiated accusations based around incidents taken completely out of context. It's an injustice to just believe someone simply because they said it. And it's a detriment to men if our lives can be completely destroyed just because a woman accuses us of something. I apologize for my "toxic masculinity", but it's supported by the Constitution as we are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Another part I agree with is your stance on both parties. The left has really swayed a lot of moderates, like myself, to side with conservatives simply because of the constant hatred they spew. 

Again, excellent post.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, caleb1633 said:

Another part I agree with is your stance on both parties. The left has really swayed a lot of moderates, like myself, to side with conservatives simply because of the constant hatred they spew. 

This works both ways.  The right has swayed a moderate like myself to side more often with Dems when I previously wouldn't have due to hatred that they spew.  Both parties have major, major flaws.

[homersapien 11,452]

On 10/6/2018 at 6:32 PM, Zeek said:

Understood Titan!
FWIW I think Trump stays in and eventually gets to replace Ginsburg who is looking rough at 85 and Breyer isn't much younger at 80. Who from Trump's short list would you like to be nominated next? I know they hate her for being religious, apparently a bad thing these days, but I was really in the Amy C-B corner and I think she'd fly through the process when compared to Kavanaugh.

That's just a BS thing to say. 

It's the sort of thinking that accentuates the political divide in this country.

It's also hypocritical.  What if a devout Muslim was nominated?  How about an atheist?  Would conservatives "hate them" for their religious beliefs?

[homersapien 11,452]

16 hours ago, Zeek said:

Seems like Ginsburg is holding on to the job just to keep that from happening. My knowledge of SupCo history is pretty limited but what's the biggest majority one party has ever had on the court? Could you imagine a 7-2?

SCOTUS judges aren't supposed to represent political parties.

[DKW 86 7,441]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

^^^^^ This has to be a fake picture because Ginsberg is maybe awake.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Back to my question in the OP regarding winners and losers here is one assessment.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/john-fund-winners-and-losers-in-the-kavanaugh-confirmation-fight

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

This from Democrat Doug Schoen. Good advice.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/doug-schoen-in-the-aftermath-of-kavanaughs-confirmation-democrats-would-be-wise-to-move-on