Kavanaugh Confirmation

#11,952
#11,952
zeppelin128 said:
To be fair, a lot on this board have pulled the "he who is without sin cast the first stone" rhetoric about Kavanaugh liking the sauce or possibly assaulting someone. Some have said even if he did hold a woman down against her will that he shouldn't be disqualified from SCOTUS; forgiveness, youth, impairment, etc.
If the board is going to take the forgiveness angle about youthful transgressions with Kavanaugh, then it should extend to Beto as well.
I'm not saying Kavanaugh sexually assaulted anyone, and I'm not saying Beto didn't screw up either (he's owned up to it for years). I'm saying if the board is going to drop the Christian card, let's be consistent.
Click to expand...

I agree. My comments were about the people lauding Beto for being "upfront" and admitting his sins while ignoring that his admission was a sanitized version of events.

Everyone has skeletons and a past DUI is a giant nothing burger when it comes to being elected/nominated.

Some here are arguing perjury because K didn't say he got drunk a lot in college even though he did say that he in fact did get drunk. Beto gets props for admitting a DUI but he left out some details and when confronted with details he doubled down. Both are non-issues to me but for some reason K's is "perjury" and disqualifying and Beto's is "meh".
 
#11,953
#11,953
lawgator1 said:
Elections have consequences. Disagreeing with his politics is a reason to vote against him but he's qualified and so you can't take issue with the other side supporting him. Of course they do.
Click to expand...

The only thing I'll quibble with is that disagreeing with a nominee's politics is a reason to vote against them but that's just my view of advise and consent.
 
#11,954
#11,954
volinbham said:
The only thing I'll quibble with is that disagreeing with a nominee's politics is a reason to vote against them but that's just my view of advise and consent.
Click to expand...
Exactly... The politics already happened when the President got elected.
 
#11,955
#11,955
NorthDallas40 said:
Now we’re talking! This is the exact kind of BS I was expecting to see get drug out all weekend and into today! Finally late Monday evening we’re getting to see some good ole non relevant BS about high school and college drinking in an attempt to smear him further! Well done!
Click to expand...
I had a few of those. Last Lap.
Mr. Papas
 
#11,957
#11,957
I have always thought that the winner of the Presidential election had a right to get his picks seated. Elections have consequences.
 
#11,959
#11,959
volinbham said:
I agree. My comments were about the people lauding Beto for being "upfront" and admitting his sins while ignoring that his admission was a sanitized version of events.

Everyone has skeletons and a past DUI is a giant nothing burger when it comes to being elected/nominated.

Some here are arguing perjury because K didn't say he got drunk a lot in college even though he did say that he in fact did get drunk. Beto gets props for admitting a DUI but he left out some details and when confronted with details he doubled down. Both are non-issues to me but for some reason K's is "perjury" and disqualifying and Beto's is "meh".
Click to expand...
Agreed, I think both situations are non-issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#11,960
#11,960
1972 Grad said:
I have always thought that the winner of the Presidential election had a right to get his picks seated. Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...
Honestly, Republicans should have seen this coming after the stunt they pulled with Merrick Garland. Doesn't make this situation right, but it all can be traced back to that.
 
#11,962
#11,962
volinbham said:
I started a fight at the Tap Room without knowing it and wasn't involved in any of the action. Fun to watch though. My team won.
Click to expand...
I had a really drunk guy bow up on me outside Charlie Peppers for no reason. I think maybe he thought I was someone else. He charged at me and I stepped to the side and he ran face first into a telephone pole. Sleepy time lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, Roustabout and volinbham
#11,963
#11,963
zeppelin128 said:
Honestly, Republicans should have seen this coming after the stunt they pulled with Merrick Garland. Doesn't make this situation right, but it all can be traced back to that.
Click to expand...
And that can be traced back to Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork before him, and Kavanaugh working on the Bill Clinton /Ken Starr investigation, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, SpaceCoastVol and norrislakevol
#11,964
#11,964
DancingOutlaw said:
I had a really drunk guy bow up on me outside Charlie Peppers for no reason. I think maybe he thought I was someone else. He charged at me and I stepped to the side and he ran face first into a telephone pole. Sleepy time lol.
Click to expand...

Well I did spill my beer on his shoes. He asked if I thought it was funny and I said no I didn't and sorry about that. I thought it was over but he started yapping at someone else in the group. Let's just say he miscalculated the situation.
 
#11,965
#11,965
volinbham said:
It's pretty simple - the Justices have various judicial philosophies that guide their rulings. Parties are pretty fluid in what they support so it is entirely conceivable and history is replete with examples of Justices ruling in ways that the politicians of the day consider a "betrayal". Roberts is only the latest example (probably some more recent).

Partisanship is about winning power and we all know that both parties switch positions on issues to suit their power needs. Justices however tend to be more consistent over time on how they interpret law. Some times it is in line with what partisans want; sometimes it is completely frustrating to the partisans who thought this was their "guy" or "gal". Ask Republicans if they thought Souter ruled they way they thought he would (just one of many examples).
Click to expand...
What's the best example of this regarding a judge who went against their liberal views?
 
#11,967
#11,967
volinbham said:
Well I did spill my beer on his shoes. He asked if I thought it was funny and I said no I didn't and sorry about that. I thought it was over but he started yapping at someone else in the group. Let's just say he miscalculated the situation.
Click to expand...
I did always enjoy watching the unsuspecting jaw at someone you know could fight.
 
#11,968
#11,968
I can tell you a funny story about an FBI back ground check and a mooning incident in Hillsboro Village back in the day.
 
#11,969
#11,969
lawgator1 said:
Solicitor general for a year, that's a lot of responsibility. Dean of Harvard Law for quite some time. Chicago Law Scho professor. Some clerkships including at Supreme Court. Some White House policy work.

Ideally one would serve on one of the circuit courts for a period of time but I don't think you can say she is unqualified.
Click to expand...

Hence, why I said "somewhat" since she didn't have case history for the Senate to take a look at prior to being confirmed.
 
#11,970
#11,970
DancingOutlaw said:
I had a really drunk guy bow up on me outside Charlie Peppers for no reason. I think maybe he thought I was someone else. He charged at me and I stepped to the side and he ran face first into a telephone pole. Sleepy time lol.
Click to expand...
Miss that place. Hawkeyes bastard child.
 
#11,971
#11,971
luthervol said:
Isn't this Trump's second nomination?
Click to expand...
theFallGuy said:
Flake was dumb to cave into demands. As predicted Dems already calling investigation a sham. Nothing the Republicans give in on will be considered good enough because they will continue to move the goal posts. That's because this is not about finding the truth, it's about stalling the nomination process as long as possible for political purposes.
Click to expand...
That's when you slap them in the faces... Hard. Better yet get a rolled up newspaper.😳
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top