What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (4 Viewers)

Sinn Fein said:
But this does put a lot of pressure on Collins and Murkowski - among others.
Click to expand...


The Z Machine said:
It'll come down to the female senators to confirm.
Click to expand...
Earlier this session, Judiciary confirmed a guy who had never tried a criminal case to head up the criminal division of the DOJ.  

This is the party that continued to support Roy Moore for Senate and almost got him elected.  

This is the party that watched Joe Arpaio get pardoned and did nothing.  Even when he ran for the Senate as a member of their party.

This is the party that did nothing when the Access Hollywood tape came out.  

This is the party that hand-picked McCain’s seat-filler because he prepped Kavanaugh for confirmation and would be a reliable vote to confirm (and hang around for one last attempt to repeal ACA, but that’s another thread).

If Kavanaugh doesn’t withdraw his name, he’s going to be on the Supreme Court.  

This is not normal world.

This is why they’ve been eating Trump’s #### for the last couple years.  

They are not going to let some California liberal, trainer of the future liberal elite, stop this because she had a lousy date with Kavanaugh in high school.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I agree with what Drunken Cowboy (I think) said a couple of pages ago.  The standard of evidence here should be something like "Is this a credible accusation?" not "Is this true beyond a reasonable doubt?"  I don't think the country is well-served by having a SCOTUS justice that has been credibly accused of sexual assault.  There are plenty of other conservative justices to pick from -- go with one whose character is less questionable.
Click to expand...
Yes, this was pretty much exactly my thoughts.

 
Henry Ford said:
I’m not sure I understand.  Could you put it into words that will hopefully follow you around every time you’d like to discuss the topics of rape, misogyny, and gender equality?
Click to expand...
Right wing talk show hosts, and particularly Dennis Prager, have spent the last several years absolutely demonizing college professors and feminism. 

For Prager, who I listen to from time to time, they are the great evil in this country. It’s gotten to the point where he urges parents not to send their children to university for fear of leftist indoctrination. 

 
timschochet said:
Right wing talk show hosts, and particularly Dennis Prager, have spent the last several years absolutely demonizing college professors and feminism. 

For Prager, who I listen to from time to time, they are the great evil in this country. It’s gotten to the point where he urges parents not to send their children to university for fear of leftist indoctrination. 
Click to expand...
Fine by me. I'd rather people like that not get a chance at a better way of life. They don't deserve it.

 
Sand said:
I've read them.  I disagree with the notions put forth.  We have an incident that isn't provable one way or the other.  Never will be, despite Sinn's partial omniscience.  So what can you do with a 35 year old allegation that can't be proven?  (Note this isn't analogous to Cosby who had 50+ accusers, we have one).   

You're correct, but I'd expect that a lawyer would understand the construct and how it applies to many other situations in this world.  Without this kind of restraint we're no better than a lynch mob.  
Click to expand...
Certainly there’s someone out there in their early 50s who can reliably rule on the conservative side of things, especially restricting abortion convenience and voting rights, who hasn’t previously lied under oath, hasn’t used stolen property to further a political agenda, and hasn't been implicated in a sexual assault?  Certainly if we looked really hard we could find one person fitting that description, right?  With the current clown show of a vetting process we call the Grassley-led Senate Judiciary Committee, I’m not even sure the candidate needs to have graduated from law school.  

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
Certainly there’s someone out there in their early 50s who can reliably rule on the conservative side of things, especially restricting abortion convenience and voting rights, who hasn’t previously lied under oath, hasn’t used stolen property to further a political agenda, and hasn't been implicated in a sexual assault?  Certainly if we looked really hard we could find one person fitting that description, right?  With the current clown show of a vetting process we call the Grassley-led Senate Judiciary Committee, I’m not even sure the candidate needs to have graduated from law school.  
Click to expand...
Wait til he puts Sessions up instead.  That’ll be fun. 

 
timschochet said:
Your argument from yesterday, that the FBI investigated this and found nothing so it’s not credible, has been proven wrong or irrelevant, so now you move to a new argument, which is that we’ll never know for sure one way or another. 

Thats true. But your conclusion that we should ignore it is not true. In fact it makes no sense to me. 
Click to expand...
He passed six FBI background checks.  He has gone through three confirmation hearings.   

Ignore it?  No.  We have an accusation.  We have a denial and a corroborating denial.  But intellectual honesty should drive one to look at it in current context.  Kavanaugh has been accused of something that isn't provable; actually, more importantly, he's been accused of something that isn't disprovable.   And it has occurred, after 35 years, on the cusp of a confirmation vote.  This follows a political assassination procedural to the letter.

 
Sand said:
He passed six FBI background checks.  He has gone through three confirmation hearings.   

Ignore it?  No.  We have an accusation.  We have a denial and a corroborating denial.  But intellectual honesty should drive one to look at it in current context.  Kavanaugh has been accused of something that isn't provable; actually, more importantly, he's been accused of something that isn't disprovable.   And it has occurred, after 35 years, on the cusp of a confirmation vote.  This follows a political assassination procedural to the letter.
Click to expand...
So are you saying she made it up?  A well-respected psychology mind would risk throwing away her life’s work to torpedo a SCOTUS nominee? Lie to her therapist about it years ahead of time to plant the seed and make it look good just in case?  

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
So are you saying she made it up?  A well-respected psychology mind would risk throwing away her life’s work to torpedo a SCOTUS nominee? Lie to her therapist about it years ahead of time to plant the seed and make it look good just in case?  
Click to expand...
It's real easy if Kavanaugh did it he will resign from the appointment. If she is a liar he will not resign and will sit on the Supreme Court.

It really is as easy as that. he is a well-respected judge and I trust him far more than this last minute ploy to do exactly what the Democrats said they would do.

To much of a coincidence after 35 years. Should have been brought up at his first confirmation.

Next move on Kavanaugh.  Even if he did this 35 years ago, it is irrelevant, unless he was asked and lied about it.

 
Qanon said:
Even if he did this 35 years ago, it is irrelevant, unless he was asked and lied about it.
Click to expand...
Interesting take - I am not sure I completely disagree.  I do question whether this is truly a disqualifying event - does it really speak to who he is as a person today? I know that many could reach a reasonable conclusion either way.

But, your caveat is what stood out to me - assuming you believe the victim, then we know Kavanaugh has been asked, and has lied about it.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Interesting take - I am not sure I completely disagree.  I do question whether this is truly a disqualifying event - does it really speak to who he is as a person today? I know that many could reach a reasonable conclusion either way.

But, your caveat is what stood out to me - assuming you believe the victim, then we know Kavanaugh has been asked, and has lied about it.
Click to expand...
If he did it.  And if a conviction would have been disqualifying.  This is disqualifying. 

Do we want people on the sex offender’s list on the SCOTUS.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Interesting take - I am not sure I completely disagree.  I do question whether this is truly a disqualifying event - does it really speak to who he is as a person today? I know that many could reach a reasonable conclusion either way.

But, your caveat is what stood out to me - assuming you believe the victim, then we know Kavanaugh has been asked, and has lied about it.
Click to expand...
If he had shoplifted something or keyed somebody's car or something like that, I would let it go.  But attempted rape is too big a deal to give it a pass just because he was 17.

Maybe if he made some kind of statement like "I made a horrible mistake when I was a kid and I've learned from it" I could be talked into the position that it isn't disqualifying, but that ship sailed when he unambiguously denied the whole thing.

 
Sand said:
He passed six FBI background checks.  He has gone through three confirmation hearings.   

Ignore it?  No.  We have an accusation.  We have a denial and a corroborating denial.  But intellectual honesty should drive one to look at it in current context.  Kavanaugh has been accused of something that isn't provable; actually, more importantly, he's been accused of something that isn't disprovable.   And it has occurred, after 35 years, on the cusp of a confirmation vote.  This follows a political assassination procedural to the letter.
Click to expand...
I think this is a very dangerous approach to take - because its simply not true.  The allegation is "provabable" in the sense that fair-minded people can listen to the evidence and make a factual determination as to whether it did happen.

What I think you mean, is there is no video - only one woman's word v. Kavanaugh and Judge.  

And, I have to say, I believe her version of events much more than I believe Kavanaugh's version (and Judge's)

 
Qanon said:
It's real easy if Kavanaugh did it he will resign from the appointment. If she is a liar he will not resign and will sit on the Supreme Court.

It really is as easy as that. he is a well-respected judge and I trust him far more than this last minute ploy to do exactly what the Democrats said they would do.

To much of a coincidence after 35 years. Should have been brought up at his first confirmation.

Next move on Kavanaugh.  Even if he did this 35 years ago, it is irrelevant, unless he was asked and lied about it.
Click to expand...
It’s not that easy.  We now know that Kavanaugh lied his way through his last confirmation.  There is nothing to suggest Kavanaugh would voluntarily withdraw from the process over something objectionable he did in the past - in fact, we have observed him cover up past objectionable behavior to get where he is today.  

It's not as simple as “he said, she said” when the he has lied to the Senate under oath.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Interesting take - I am not sure I completely disagree.  I do question whether this is truly a disqualifying event - does it really speak to who he is as a person today? I know that many could reach a reasonable conclusion either way.

But, your caveat is what stood out to me - assuming you believe the victim, then we know Kavanaugh has been asked, and has lied about it.
Click to expand...
You can't take something that happened 35 years ago and apply todays #Metoo standards. I went to a lot of party's with a lot of kegs and fooling around. Apparently all you guys here were angels when you went to high school/college, especially if it was 35 years ago. different age,different time, different mores. That's just an unpleasant fact. 

Again I think if he thinks he did something wrong he will resign, because I believe that is the kind of person he is.

A lot of freaking hypocrites in here right now with very limited recollections of their own high school days. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think this is a very dangerous approach to take - because its simply not true.  The allegation is "provabable" in the sense that fair-minded people can listen to the evidence and make a factual determination as to whether it did happen.

What I think you mean, is there is no video - only one woman's word v. Kavanaugh and Judge.  

And, I have to say, I believe her version of events much more than I believe Kavanaugh's version (and Judge's)
Click to expand...
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.  It’s completely irrelevant to his confirmation hearing though.

An accusation of a 35 year old attempted rape isn’t going to go anywhere without evidence, nor should it.

He will be confirmed and the FBI can investigate if they choose.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand said:
He passed six FBI background checks.  He has gone through three confirmation hearings.   

Ignore it?  No.  We have an accusation.  We have a denial and a corroborating denial.  But intellectual honesty should drive one to look at it in current context.  Kavanaugh has been accused of something that isn't provable; actually, more importantly, he's been accused of something that isn't disprovable.   And it has occurred, after 35 years, on the cusp of a confirmation vote.  This follows a political assassination procedural to the letter.
Click to expand...
Interesting political assassination, to go back in time and talk to her therapist about it and have him/her take notes in 2012. 

 
jonessed said:
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.  It’s completely irrelevant to his confirmation hearing though.

An accusation of a 35 year old attempted rape isn’t going to go anywhere without evidence, nor should it.

Confirm him and let the FBI do its investigation if they so choose.  
Click to expand...
Victim testimony is evidence. 

 
Henry Ford said:
If he did it.  And if a conviction would have been disqualifying.  This is disqualifying. 

Do we want people on the sex offender’s list on the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
He  cannot be proven guilty of anything. 

Just look Clintons past as well as his wife's enabling and destruction of a half dozen women. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Qanon said:
You can't take something that happened 35 years ago and apply todays #Metoo standards. I went to a lot of party's with a lot of kegs and fooling around. Apparently all you guys here were angels when you went to high school/college, especially if it was 35 years ago. different age,different time, different mores. That's just an unpleasant fact. 

Again I think if he thinks he did something wrong he will resign, because I believe that is the kind of person he is.

A lot of freaking hypocrites in here right now with very limited recollections of their own high school days. 
Click to expand...
Are we pretending that there was a time where attempted sexual assault was ever "right"?  Being accepted by the male driven society of 30 years ago speaks nothing of whether it was right/wrong......just of that which was accepted at the time.  Sexual assault laws have been on the books since the 1800s,

 
The Commish said:
Are we pretending that there was a time where attempted sexual assault was ever "right"?  Being accepted by the male driven society of 30 years ago speaks nothing of whether it was right/wrong......just of that which was accepted at the time.  Sexual assault laws have been on the books since the 1800s,
Click to expand...
We are not pretending anything. If YOU do not see a difference of mores now and 35 years ago then you are a fool.

 
Henry Ford said:
If this all actually happened, I’d imagine because it’s a horrible process for a victim to go through.  
Click to expand...
Yes imagine it. 

Four women over the past few decades have publicly accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault or harassment. One woman accused Clinton of raping her.

Hypocrite.

 
Qanon said:
You can't take something that happened 35 years ago and apply todays #Metoo standards. I went to a lot of party's with a lot of kegs and fooling around. Apparently all you guys here were angels when you went to high school/college, especially if it was 35 years ago. different age,different time, different mores. That's just an unpleasant fact. 

Again I think if he thinks he did something wrong he will resign, because I believe that is the kind of person he is.

A lot of freaking hypocrites in here right now with very limited recollections of their own high school days. 
Click to expand...
It used to be that we had higher standards for people we place in places of high power and dignity than those we apply to Joe the Mechanic.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top