Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I’m firmly in the “wait and see what happens” camp on these things until someone inevitably comes in to downplay over and over again what the allegations are.  It’s patently offensive and truly the worst thing on the internet. 

:shrug:

it was the 80s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

I have a hard time believing any Republican is going to care about this new story considering what the president has done. Even if this woman goes on record, hell... even if more come out. This guy is confirmed. The Rs need him on board for the next session.

Video evidence of Kavanaugh raping a girl at a party could surface and the Senate would still confirm him.  They can't back down now.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Video evidence of Kavanaugh raping a girl at a party could surface and the Senate would still confirm him.  They can't back down now.  

Unfortunately this is true, and it's a strong argument for why we should go back to the old norms on SCOTUS nominees after this one.  Considering what happened with Garland, Republicans have no right to complain if they lose this seat as a result of Kavanaugh getting sunk. But then it's time for folks to realize how dysfunctional this system is.  You are 100% right that a large number of Republicans would vote to confirm a known sex offender if the alternative is losing the seat, which is exactly what's at stake in the midterms.  It's much better if the president can withdraw a bad nomination and send up somebody better instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Do it under oath. That’s the extent of his obligation and ability to defend himself, obviously.

That's a political lynching, given the tone and tenor of the proceedings.  Heck, even RBG has expressed her thoughts on how awful this process is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

 it's a strong argument for why we should go back to the old norms on SCOTUS nominees after this one.

What a maximum Republican thing to say. Gore v bush, now this, i wonder what the next aspect of governmentthe Rs will make a sham of then go "hey lets go back to how things used to be" and pretend nothing was wrong. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Unfortunately this is true, and it's a strong argument for why we should go back to the old norms on SCOTUS nominees after this one.

It's a strong argument for why we should do it now. I read this as rooting for Kavanaugh to be approved.

The fact that Republicans won't do it now has nothing to do with "should".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

I remember the 80s.  Never tried to rape anybody.

Going on a tangent here, but speaking of both the 80's and rape, 'Revenge of the Nerds' sure hasn't aged well. I saw it again not long ago and damn those nerds are pretty awful people whose characters probably should have faced a lot of criminal charges. The jocks were the real heroes trying to protect their community from these incels.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hilts said:

Going on a tangent here, but speaking of both the 80's and rape, 'Revenge of the Nerds' sure hasn't aged well. I saw it again not long ago and damn those nerds are pretty awful people whose characters probably should have faced a lot of criminal charges. The jocks were the real heroes trying to protect their community from these incels.

Right?  The nerds were rapists and pornographers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

So it was two?

And then if someone did I should be forced to confront the allegation under oath.  And once I do I expect people would check into my history of testifying under oath and see if I had a tendency to tell the whole truth and be forthcoming.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In very few of my romantic encounters, all consensual, did I feel the need, or did the female want, to have one of my buddies in the room or area.  In fact, generally we wanted to be alone absent a few 3 way scenarios that still never involved one of my male friends.

While  there may have been times I wished my date or partner would shut the hell up I never had cause to put my hand over their mouth.

There are not 65 folks who would rally to testify about my character if a call went out for 30 consecutive days.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, proninja said:

I have bad news for you about going back to the old norms if a large number of Republicans would vote to confirm a known sex offender if the alternative is losing the seat. 

The democrats can play as nice as they want. Republicans won't. At least not as presently composed. 

The old norms were country over party. If you can talk your fellow conservatives back to that I'd really appreciate it. 

You have a much longer memory than I if you can remember a time when politicians put “country over party.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Megaton said:

Seriously...people are taking an anonymous letter provided by a partisan politician about an incident 35 years ago right before a very  contentious politicized nomination as if it were gospel and as if that is the moral high ground.   Unbelievable.   

Who is taking it as gospel jon?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Who is taking it as gospel jon?

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to answer to this.  Anyone who refers to him as a rapist or attempted rapist.  Anyone thinking the Republicans are the ones looking bad here.  Pretty much all the usual posters on this forum.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2018 at 7:45 AM, irishidiot said:

The actions of the Dems in confirmation hearings were disgraceful. How anyone could watch that circus & come away with anything other than disdain for the leaders of the Dem party is beyond me.  That whole sham was disgraceful.  This latest thing by Feinstein is just another layer on a cake that is already a giant hunk of mold.  Damn, that whole process was really disappointing.  IMO

I Remain,

Sparticus

:goodposting:

There can be only two reasons that the Dems acted in such a pathetic manner (again).

  1. It was a Trump appointment so they had to resist at all cost....even at the cost of their own integrity (for those who may still have some remaining)
  2. The Dems cannot imagine a world where men in a position of authority do not take advantage of the women with whom they come in contact therefore, Kavanaugh MUST be a pig.

I vote...both.

Edited by Opie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Megaton said:

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to answer to this.  Anyone who refers to him as a rapist or attempted rapist.  Anyone thinking the Republicans are the ones looking bad here.  Pretty much all the usual posters on this forum.   

Saying someone needs to respond to an allegation or saying we should wait and see if other accusers come forward is not taking something as gospel. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Opie said:

:goodposting:

There can be only two reasons that the Dems acted in such a pathetic manner (again).

  1. It was a Trump appointment so they had to resist at all cost....even at the cost of their own integrity
  2. The Dems cannot imagine a world where men in a position of authority do not take advantage of the women with whom they come in contact therefore, Kavanaugh MUST be a pig.

I vote...both.

As a general matter, I think integrity is currently in short supply on both sides of the aisle when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, proninja said:

You don't think an attempted rape allegation is something a Supreme Court nominee should have to answer for? 

When we know who, what, when and where from a confirmed source we will have an allegation.  Right now we have second-hand partial knowledge of some alledged letter that anyone could have written to derail the process.  

Edited by Megaton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Megaton said:

Seriously...people are taking an anonymous letter provided by a partisan politician about an incident 35 years ago right before a very  contentious politicized nomination as if it were gospel and as if that is the moral high ground.   Unbelievable.   

What if the letter wasn’t anonymous?  

What if the reaction wasn’t “gospel”, but “since we’re interviewing this guy for a job he might hold for 40 years in one of the most powerful seats in the country, maybe we should take a week or two to investigate this just to make sure we’ve got the right guy”.

What if what you posted was “unbelievable” because it didn’t reflect reality?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Megaton said:

When we know who, what, when and where from a confirmed source we will have an allegation.  Right now we have second-hand partial knowledge of some alledged letter that anyone could have written to derail the process.  

The Senate Judiciary Committee knows who, what, when, and where.  The person who wrote the letter met with their Congressperson and one of their Senators in person to discuss the contents of it.  And delivered it months ago.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Megaton said:

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to answer to this.  Anyone who refers to him as a rapist or attempted rapist.  Anyone thinking the Republicans are the ones looking bad here.  Pretty much all the usual posters on this forum.   

I don't think that means taking it as gospel...but yes, he probably should have to answer about several things.

And yes...the Republicans do look bad (that doesn't meant the dems don't also)...but given their behaviors regarding the SC in the past...trying to act as if questions like this are not relevant is a bad look.

And I see losing your Jon account does not stop you from continuing to make overly generalized statements about posters here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Not sure why you feel the need to be a smart ###.  It's a legitimate question.  Assuming this really did happen to her, why did she wait 30 years?  What made her decide to all of a sudden go public?

The guy who tried to rape her whom she’s been discussing in therapy for 30 years is being nominated to a lifetime appointment where he gets to decide whether women get to control their own bodies. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, proninja said:

You don't think an attempted rape allegation is something a Supreme Court nominee should have to answer for? 

Will the accuser remain unnamed, at least to him? 

 

26 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

What if the letter wasn’t anonymous?  

What if the reaction wasn’t “gospel”, but “since we’re interviewing this guy for a job he might hold for 40 years in one of the most powerful seats in the country, maybe we should take a week or two to investigate this just to make sure we’ve got the right guy”.

What if what you posted was “unbelievable” because it didn’t reflect reality?

A week or two? Lol. You sell out your true motivation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

The guy who tried to rape her whom she’s been discussing in therapy for 30 years is being nominated to a lifetime appointment where he gets to decide whether women get to control their own bodies. 

So the alleged attempted rape wasn't that important for all the other years he was a judge and this is an attempt to block him for being on the SCOTUS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ramblin Wreck said:

So the alleged attempted rape wasn't that important for all the other years he was a judge and this is an attempt to block him for being on the SCOTUS?

I haven’t spoken with her.  But this post is a great example of why women don’t come forward. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

@sho nuff still want to try and argue that the usual suspects arent taking this as gospel?

His post said “assuming this really did happen”

So my response assumed it really did happen.  No one is taking this as gospel.  

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

I’m firmly in the “wait and see what happens” camp on these things until someone inevitably comes in to downplay over and over again what the allegations are.  It’s patently offensive and truly the worst thing on the internet. 

 

8 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

And then if someone did I should be forced to confront the allegation under oath.  And once I do I expect people would check into my history of testifying under oath and see if I had a tendency to tell the whole truth and be forthcoming.  

 

36 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Saying someone needs to respond to an allegation or saying we should wait and see if other accusers come forward is not taking something as gospel. 

 

18 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

I've seriously been asking people for what they're claiming all day.  We don't have any idea what this woman is claiming Kavanaugh did, other than vague assertions.  We don't know what Feinstein said other than a statement definitely not providing innuendo (in fact not even asserting the sex of the person who wrote the letter.)  I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.

 

18 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

If "he tried to force himself on me" = "He grabbed me and held me down and then I kicked him and ran away" then yes, he's an accused attempted rapist.

If "he tried to force himself on me" = "He held me down, pulled my clothes to the side and stuck his tongue in me" then he's an accused rapist.

I don't have any idea what the actual allegation is.

 

3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

@sho nuff still want to try and argue that the usual suspects arent taking this as gospel?

Yes...because of posts like the above and his other thoughts that have been made pretty clear...things you should probably read before commenting as you just did.  Plus his latest reply to you shows what he is saying...HTH

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

So the alleged attempted rape wasn't that important for all the other years he was a judge and this is an attempt to block him for being on the SCOTUS?

I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. Sometimes people dont want to come forward, it happens. The more important point here is we are talking about a situation from forever ago when they were both 17 and probably both drinking( even though of course i dont think they have mentioned that she was drinking, but how could we know for sure all these years later). So many grey area possibilities here. Especially when one thing that is an almost absolute among people is that their account of a situation puts them in the best light. Memories also morph quite a bit over time. 

Oh and in addition we are getting a third hand account of these details.

By making a big deal of it and putting it in the news for 2 more weeks isnt a legit endeavor. It is literally impossible to get to the bottom of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s assume for a moment that the Kavanaugh supporters in this thread and elsewhere are correct and that this accusation is completely false; it never happened. 

If so, then there’s two ways for the Republicans to handle it: 

“Attempted rape is a serious accusation. We have strong doubts that it ever happened, but nonetheless we’re going to investigate because we want to be absolutely sure. (A week later). We’ve investigated and determined there’s nothing to this. We’re moving forward.”

or 

“Screw you. This is just partisan crap. It’s all lies. We don’t need to investigate; we know. Let’s push through this vote right now and anyone who doesn’t like it, too bad.” 

The Republicans are seemingly choosing the second approach. I don’t think it’s a wise choice, either politically or morally for that matter. I think they will regret it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

 

 

 

 

 

Yes...because of posts like the above and his other thoughts that have been made pretty clear...things you should probably read before commenting as you just did.  Plus his latest reply to you shows what he is saying...HTH

No it doesnt. He has referred to somebody as cosby. He has said minimizing this is the worst thing on the internet. He doesnt get to have his cake and eat it too. Dont be a sucker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Clayton Gray changed the title to ***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Welcome New Justice

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...