Kavanaugh

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by pugchief » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:29 am

ochotona wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:05 am
moda0306 wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:57 am
Desert wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:34 am
Interesting post, moda.

Purely for humor value, I saw an article that Ted Cruz is telling voters that his opponent intends to eliminate barbecue if elected. Now that could definitely kick off Civil War II!

(I haven't checked the accuracy of said article, I just found the idea pretty humorous. Dirty commie bastards are comin' fer our brisket!)
Man... while I think how factory farm animals are treated is one of the biggest modern moral issues, if you come for my BBQ you'll see me well-armed and on the side of the knuckle-dragging Trumpists. :)

In all seriousness though... Ted Cruz needs to whither away into illegitimacy.
Houston is the most diverse metro area in the Nation, more so than NYC even. Tons of us Americans of Asians ancestry here, I've been eating Tofu since I was a toddler. For him to make Tofu jokes... well, it's bordering on fried chicken, watermelon, loose shoes, and a warm place to take a dump kind of talk. It's tribal signaling, and it stinks.
In his defense, that idiotic comment was not a slam on Asians, but a dig on looney-toon Californians and the difference between Liberal CA and conservative TX.
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Desert » Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:00 am

Yeah, I think Cruz was making an attempt at good-natured humor. But, he's Ted Cruz, so he's not really funny.

It reminds me of what Al Franken said (since we're on the topic of sexual deviants):

“Here’s the thing you have to understand about Ted Cruz,” Franken wrote in the book. “I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz.”
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Desert » Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:14 am

barrett wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:41 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:29 pm
I'd like to ask one hypothetical question.

Let's assume her claim is beyond a doubt proven true. That he did force his body on her, and put his hand over her mouth to prevent screaming from being heard, and was rip-roaring drunk. When he was 17, 30+ years ago.

Who thinks that is disqualifying vs. not?
Disqualifying, yes. I mean that is attempted rape or something awfully close to it. If it's not disqualifying then we're on a very slippery slope. I mean what if it's true but it was only ten years ago? I don't see that being drunk gives anyone any kind of free pass to do anything. Its not as if being drunk can be blamed on someone else.
I agree. It's definitely disqualifying, if true. This isn't a trial, it's an evaluation process for one of the most important government positions in existence. There are other qualified conservative judges to select from if Kavanaugh doesn't work out.

The accusation could be false. The accuser could have discussed this with her husband and marriage counselor 6 years ago, all with the long-term plan to eventually sabotage Kavanaugh when he was finally nominated. She could have welcomed the hatred and death threats, the fear for her family's safety. Stranger things have happened.

My thoughts, as of today, are this: There are other Conservative judges qualified for this position. The goal of this appointment (and indeed the reason so many Evangelicals held their noses and voted for Trump) is to overturn Roe v Wade. With that goal, it would be very good to have either a woman or a man not suspected of sexual assault in that seat. It's going to be a very rough time in the country, and we don't need that distraction while the abortion battle rages.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by flyingpylon » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:06 am

The whole thing is such an obvious political hit job that it's difficult to take it seriously.

Kavanaugh's opponents are not really interested in "justice", they are simply trying to create enough chaos for the nomination to be withdrawn.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Tyler » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:06 am

Desert wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:14 am
I agree. It's definitely disqualifying, if true. This isn't a trial, it's an evaluation process for one of the most important government positions in existence. There are other qualified conservative judges to select from if Kavanaugh doesn't work out.
I hear what you're saying, but personally I think that believing there's any conservative judge out there that the "Resistance" won't similarly attempt to derail at all costs is naive. Both the timing of the accusations and the strange string of delaying tactics in hearing the accuser's testimony indicate that this really has nothing to do with a genuine pursuit of justice. It's all about delay and claiming a scalp in the process.

Frankly, I think giving into the pressure to pull Kavanaugh based on a completely unsubstantiated accusation only corrupts our government even further. I fully support Dr. Ford in having her voice heard swiftly and under oath. No delays, and no games. If her testimony is credible and stands up to scrutiny, then find another nominee. If not, then feel bad for her but move on with the nomination because innocent people deserve the benefit of the doubt. And if she's caught lying for political purposes, prosecute her for perjury and/or sue her for libel. False political stunts harm all women who deal with real sexual assault. And as a parallel path, I think the Senate should open an ethics investigation into Feinstein to determine why exactly she sat on this information for so long.

And no matter what happens after this, hold all politicians of both parties to the same standard they apply to Kavanaugh. There will be no quicker way to clean out Congress. For starters, how about eliminating the congressional fund for sexual harassment payouts and name every congressman who has benefited from it. I'm sure we'd all love to hear similar public testimony from every man and woman our elected leaders have provably mistreated.

Man, the more I think about the hypocrisy of the whole thing the more it frustrates me.
Last edited by Tyler on Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:39 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Mechanical engineer, history buff, treasure manager... totally not Ben Gates
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Desert » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:39 am

Tyler,

I agree with a lot of your post. I haven't done a whole lot of research on this issue, and like you, I'm fine with following the facts wherever they lead.

Both sides will do whatever they can do to block appointments, as we saw with Garland. Hopefully the truth, whatever it is, will win out in this case.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1746
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Cortopassi » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:46 am

Ditto, Desert and Tyler.

They haven't gotten rid of that taxpayer funded harassment fund yet? Really. Wow. Faith in government even lower now.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/co ... fdcc555eaf
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by pugchief » Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:07 pm

Tyler wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:06 am
I hear what you're saying, but personally I think that believing there's any conservative judge out there that the "Resistance" won't similarly attempt to derail at all costs is naive. Both the timing of the accusations and the strange string of delaying tactics in hearing the accuser's testimony indicate that this really has nothing to do with a genuine pursuit of justice. It's all about delay and claiming a scalp in the process.
This ^.

Desert wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:14 am
The goal of this appointment (and indeed the reason so many Evangelicals held their noses and voted for Trump) is to overturn Roe v Wade. With that goal, it would be very good to have either a woman or a man not suspected of sexual assault in that seat. It's going to be a very rough time in the country, and we don't need that distraction while the abortion battle rages.
Maybe I'm naive, or misinformed, but I thought Roe v Wade was considered settled law in this country.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2530
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Xan » Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:13 pm

pugchief wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:07 pm
Tyler wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:06 am
I hear what you're saying, but personally I think that believing there's any conservative judge out there that the "Resistance" won't similarly attempt to derail at all costs is naive. Both the timing of the accusations and the strange string of delaying tactics in hearing the accuser's testimony indicate that this really has nothing to do with a genuine pursuit of justice. It's all about delay and claiming a scalp in the process.
This ^.

Desert wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:14 am
The goal of this appointment (and indeed the reason so many Evangelicals held their noses and voted for Trump) is to overturn Roe v Wade. With that goal, it would be very good to have either a woman or a man not suspected of sexual assault in that seat. It's going to be a very rough time in the country, and we don't need that distraction while the abortion battle rages.
Maybe I'm naive, or misinformed, but I thought Roe v Wade was considered settled law in this country.
That's the thing about the Supreme Court: they can change settled law.

Well, they can change previous interpretations. Since abortion was enshrined as a right not in any law, not in any document, not by any state, and not by any vote, it can be overturned just as easily as it was invented. That it, by five people agreeing to.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by stuper1 » Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:51 pm

Roe v Wade is based on the constitutional "right to privacy", which the founders certainly never contemplated would be the foundation for the right to have abortions.

If Roe v Wade were overturned, then abortion would become a state-by-state decision, which the founders certainly would have been in favor of.
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Desert » Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:34 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:19 pm
Desert wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:34 am
Interesting post, moda.

Purely for humor value, I saw an article that Ted Cruz is telling voters that his opponent intends to eliminate barbecue if elected. Now that could definitely kick off Civil War II!

(I haven't checked the accuracy of said article, I just found the idea pretty humorous. Dirty commie bastards are comin' fer our brisket!)
I'd be curious to see if people agree with my take... I find harder-leftists that think Hillary is a corporatist war-monger easier to discuss issues in a balanced way than establishment (yet rabidly anti-Trump) "I'm with Her" McResistance types.
I've been thinking about this point, moda. My first thought was generally agreeing that the far right and far left are somewhat more reasonable to converse with, and just as importantly, perhaps those two extremes are maybe a bit more consistent in their beliefs, have a better grasp of history and are thinking longer term. But then I began to think it might not necessarily be far right/left, but certain groups across the spectrum that have somehow maintained a bit more logic and consistency during these times. Two examples on the right: The neocons/free-trade/corporatists have been remarkably consistent, in my view. Many are very anti-Trump, which is consistent with their claimed views. A large percentage of Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to have pretty easily sold out on many of their previously held beliefs (free trade, pro immigration, deficit reduction, etc.). Of course this is just an observation, and I don't have statistics to back that up.

The left probably appears a bit more consistent simply because there is a common enemy in Trump. If Clinton were president, we'd see all manner of inconsistencies on the left as well. What is sadly lacking the most, are folks that can divorce themselves from either "team," and select viewpoints that are actually consistent. It's maddening. Leftists furious about kids in pens at the border, should be even more outraged over abortion. Pro-lifers should be at least somewhat concerned about unnecessary wars and preventable death. Identifying too much with either party will result in inconsistent thinking, and an inability to logically assess an individual issue. I dislike Trump immensely, which makes it much more difficult to think about the immigration challenges that face our country, for example. But I think we can all get beyond those mental chains if we simply put a little effort into it. I get that it's easy to just be part of a tribe and accept the whole basket of beliefs of that tribe. But it's quite sad to see.
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Desert » Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:36 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:13 pm

That's the thing about the Supreme Court: they can change settled law.

Well, they can change previous interpretations. Since abortion was enshrined as a right not in any law, not in any document, not by any state, and not by any vote, it can be overturned just as easily as it was invented. That it, by five people agreeing to.
This post is worth re-reading a few times.
Post Reply