Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[Blackjack200]

McConnell is at an event saying that Kavanaugh will be confirmed no matter what. If he had the votes he'd bypass the committee and call the nomination to the floor. Seems like an excessively bold prediction.

I believe it. Voting on the confirmation before the hearing is an unnecessarily bad look. So they can have their kangaroo hearing where she tells the story that everybody already knows, he says "no, I didn't do that", and all the senators can say "whelp, we can't assume guilt".

The only way it goes wrong is if additional evidence surfaces between now and then.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

They want him seated by October 1, the next term. There are some important cases and they don't want the risk of a 4/4 split letting decisions stand. There is no way in hell they allow a delay unless something irrefutable comes up and even then who knows.

Again it's so sad that they want him on the court not so he can decide the law based on the law but because they know how he will decide based on his party affiliation.

 

[boomerang]

1. Yes, how can Kavanaugh answer any accusation she makes when he has to testify first? She's making accusations, not him.
2. He can't be in the room when she testifies? He has the right to face his accuser. She's not a little kid.
3. It's not up to her who questions her, it's up to the Senate.
4. It's not up to her when the hearing is held, the date has been set already according to Senate rules.
5.Why does she require no time limit? Every Senator and witness has time limits.

All look unreasonable to me

It's all just fodder for the faithful. When Kavanaugh is confirmed we'll be hearing about all the conditions she's demanding as if they grace stone tablets ad nauseam.

 

[jackstar7]

I smell desperation.

The tooliest tool that ever tooled weighs in.

 

[jackstar7]

And Trump is victim blaming.

Almost on cue.


It's fucked up that the women who support Trump don't see themselves as actual people. That takes an amount of damage usually.

I pity all of his followers at this point. Some might not be deplorable, but all of them are certainly broken.

 

[fleshconsumed]

And Trump is victim blaming.

Almost on cue.


It's fucked up that the women who support Trump don't see themselves as actual people. That takes an amount of damage usually.

I pity all of his followers at this point. Some might not be deplorable, but all of them are certainly broken.

At some point those voters should take personal responsibility for their actions, it's what republicans would do anyway.

Save your pity for the people who did not vote for the fool, but got dragged down just as well.

 

[K1052]

Looks like the Republicans are agreeing to most of her conditions.

The major sticking point would appear to be who conducts the questioning. Rs still want outside counsel.

 

[soundforbjt]

Looks like the Republicans are agreeing to most of her conditions.

The major sticking point would appear to be who conducts the questioning. Rs still want outside counsel.

No way, she needs to face her accusers like Hatch who said she was "mixed up".

 

[FIVR]

Disgusting. I've never even heard of the Senate using a lawyer to do their questioning for them. They want to put this woman on trial but they don't want to risk their own reputations.

She should refuse unless the Senate questions her like they do every single other person who has been questioned in the senate before.

 

[K1052]

No way, she needs to face her accusers like Hatch who said she was "mixed up".

I agree that it seems only appropriate and consistent for the committee members to conduct the questioning as they have so far. Republicans might well still force things down this path but it's going to cost because every Dem will be on TV just fucking hammering them for not doing it themselves. Probably not going to do good things for public opinion or Trump's level of restraint.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Looks like the Republicans are agreeing to most of her conditions.

The major sticking point would appear to be who conducts the questioning. Rs still want outside counsel.

Where are you seeing this?

 

[Jaskalas]

Interesting that you see an obviously political move by the GOP to be good but a potentially political move by the witness to be bad.

What political move was that? Not wanting senile old men questioning her? Pretty sure everyone, including Democrats, were advising them not to do it. Or rather, pontificating that it was a bad idea. Then she demands their presence front and center, now all you posters are imbibing in the group-think that it's a great idea. You want the public spectacle. It's blatantly absurd partisanship.

 

[K1052]

Where are you seeing this?

reporter twitter

 

[Blackjack200]

What political move was that? Not wanting senile old men questioning her?

What the hell are you talking about? You're referring to senators as "senile old men"? If that's the case, why are they on the committee at all?

Pretty sure everyone, including Democrats, were advising them not to do it. Or rather, pontificating that it was a bad idea.

Really, you got a link for that?

Then she demands their presence front and center, now all you posters are imbibing in the group-think that it's a great idea. You want the public spectacle. It's blatantly absurd partisanship.

No, no one is saying its a great idea. It's all that's left since Republicans are refusing to let the FBI investigate.

 

[K1052]

What political move was that? Not wanting senile old men questioning her? Pretty sure everyone, including Democrats, were advising them not to do it. Or rather, pontificating that it was a bad idea. Then she demands their presence front and center, now all you posters are imbibing in the group-think that it's a great idea. You want the public spectacle. It's blatantly absurd partisanship.

It's those "senile old men" who vote on the nominee and received his testimony. The Dems would be fine with their membership questioning her, certainly out of concern for the optics they may let the four women on their side do it but they are Senators duly appointed to the committee who will vote.

 

[Jaskalas]

What the hell are you talking about? You're referring to senators as "senile old men"? If that's the case, why are they on the committee at all?

Do pictures help? If you need them, or haven't seen our Senate. There ya go.

 

[HomerJS]

What political move was that? Not wanting senile old men questioning her? Pretty sure everyone, including Democrats, were advising them not to do it. Or rather, pontificating that it was a bad idea. Then she demands their presence front and center, now all you posters are imbibing in the group-think that it's a great idea. You want the public spectacle. It's blatantly absurd partisanship.

Maybe you Republicans should have gotten off your misogynistic asses and put some women on the judiciary committee. Now it is biting you in that same ass. You white boys want to grill a sexual abuse victim, own it.

Clearly you leaned nothing since Anita Hill.

 

[jackstar7]

Do pictures help? If you need them, or haven't seen our Senate. There ya go.

What ARE you advocating for at this point?

 

[Jaskalas]

Really, you got a link for that?

• Huffpo explaining the mistake of another Anita Hill moment.
• Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas hearings and what may await Ford
  
• Female Democratic Senators are warning Republicans not to have a repeat of the past

Republicans are also discussing trying to find female outside lawyer(s) to conduct the questioning for them because...you know. This assumes a hearing happens.

Ooh! I know. It's because they have no idea how to treat women with respect!

Come on, no one feels that they are capable of handling this properly.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Maybe you Republicans should have gotten off your misogynistic asses and put some women on the judiciary committee. Now it is biting you in that same ass. You white boys want to grill a sexual abuse victim, own it.

Clearly you leaned nothing since Anita Hill.

Perhaps -Deb Fischer (NE), Martha McSally (AZ) , Marsha Blackburn (TN) or Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) will join the Judiciary Committee as soon as they are elected.
Who knows, it may help when President Trump replaces Justice Ginsburg.

 

[Jaskalas]

What ARE you advocating for at this point?

If they want to use a professional to handle the question(s), in what I assume to be a more respectable manner, then my point is: why shouldn't they?

 

[jackstar7]

If they want to use a professional to handle the question(s), in what I assume to be a more respectable manner, then my point is: why shouldn't they?

They made their bed. Why shouldn't they be made to lie in it?

Why do you afford them comfort? Particularly, when they've offered none to Ford.

 

[sactoking]

Maybe a political party that consistently only elects old, white men should face the consequences for its lack of diversity instead of getting bailed out when the optics might be worse than normal.

 

[K1052]

If they want to use a professional to handle the question(s), in what I assume to be a more respectable manner, then my point is: why shouldn't they?

All the possible defenses for this reflect badly on the members and the party as a whole that they couldn't manage to question Ford without (likely) something really terrible happening. Excusing elected officials from their duties because being seen attempting to perform them might expose that they are ill equipped for the jobs they hold isn't in the interest of the people.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Maybe a political party that consistently only elects old, white men should face the consequences for its lack of diversity instead of getting bailed out when the optics might be worse than normal.

*Perhaps -Deb Fischer (NE), Martha McSally (AZ) , Marsha Blackburn (TN) or Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) will join the Judiciary Committee as soon as they are elected.
Who knows, it may help when President Trump replaces Justice Ginsburg.*
Posted earlier.