Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Sure, when there is a conservative majority, it means that literally no ruling can happen without the consent of conservative justices. The argument in favor of gay marriage is a conservative one and that's why it ultimately got the support it needed.

 

If any of the claims had any credibility whatsoever, that might matter. Having multiple people make completely baseless accusations for political reasons means nothing to the nominee. How many people accused Obama of being a Kenyan Muslim? Guess since that many people made the accusation it means it's true right?

 

It's flat out r****ded to complain about Garland, if the Senate wasted their time with a hearing on him, they'd have just voted him down. He never had the support to end up on the bench. I know you think you are making a point here, but you aren't.

 

Cruz has been provoking liberals for years and not so subtly casting anyone who votes Democratic as a socialist/communist so he does deserve to be generally disliked in the public. If anyone deserves to be publicly shamed, it probably is p*rn addict Ted.

But these restaurant harassment's aren't helpful. They just give WingNuts the narrative they desire... which is "look at us poor people attacked for our beliefs" nonsense. Especially when you gift that narrative by involving his wife/family.

I wish people would find a more productive way to show that Ted Cruz is an un-relenting douche.

 

I've heard that severe head trauma can cause even the most rational person to become a leftist, it's really unfortunate that we haven't figured out a cure for that condition yet.

 

Those are the fortunate ones. The unlucky ones become GOP members blindly voting for useless creeps.

 

Perhaps, I have heard that ignorance is bliss. If true, our friends on the left must be the most blissful of us all.

 

you think as a judge, he would know

 

So you are saying that 1 dissenting conservative judge from a conservative majority SC allows you to lay claim that a decision was a "Conservative Majority decision"?

Sounds pedantic and political to me. Oh, well. I tried.

 

Congratulations, you finally found something on him that he actually did, underage drinking.

 

If a conservative didn't vote for it, would it have passed? It would be like if there was Democrat control over the House and Senate and a conservative bill was passed, even with most Democrats voting against it, they'd still get the credit for passing it.

 

people been talking about statute of limitation....

there is none for attempted rape in Maryland

https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Maryland&group=7

 

I don't think think that Kavanaugh has publicly stated that "he sees the error of his ways". If he did, I think that changes the conversation. But Trump's playbook and thus Kavanaugh's is ... deny, deny deny.

Assuming the worst here for Kavanaugh, he knew what skeletons were in his closet and he still still took the chance that the scrutiny of a USSC nomination would uncover his past misdeeds. His wife is publicly putting on a brave face wrt the sexual assault allegations but she must be wishing that he did not get the nomination. In the end, Kavanaugh decided to put his family through this. That calls into question his decision making abilities. Who would want someone who makes questionable decisions on the USSC? Bobby that is who!

 

Exactly, which is why if the allegation was credible at all, there would be a criminal investigation into the matter. That said, law enforcement agencies generally don't waste their time on frivolous allegations made merely for political gain and that's why there isn't a criminal investigation into Ford's comments.

 

Wouldn't the statute of limitations on the date of the alleged crime be what matters?

 

Getting credit for it is not the same as saying in specific terms that it was "Democratic Majority legislation" - it makes it sound like they led the effort which is totally misleading. But that is what you are good at it seems. Being pedantic and tribal.

If you weren't participating, this thread would lose next to no facts and would be half as long. You are like Trump - you divide but offer little insight.

 

Agreed, it's different, saying that it was something passed by a Democratic majority congress would merely be a fact that would be inarguable.....but apparently when you state an inarguable fact you'll still have several people attempt to argue against it. I guess that's more of the "post factual world" nonsense.

 

The level of greed you are exhibiting and the extent to which you are stretching facts is hilarious. You must really lack principles and shame to be so hell bent on taking credit for something you opposed. But then I remember that you are a right winger and am no longer surprised

 

How about that. Should local police be conducting interviews?

The deny, deny, deny strategy is a perjury strategy -- if the accusation is false (though there's some ambiguity still -- he could have blacked out the event because he was so drunk, or something like that). "Seeing the error of his ways" is an alternative reality scenario and not what's happening here. Here's a matrix:

Accusation is true / He admits it under oath and asks forgiveness: Senate must decide whether or not to forgive.
Accusation is true / He denies it under oath: He has perjured himself and should not be a Justice.
Accusation is false / He denies it under oath: He should be confirmed.
Accusation is false / He admits to it anyway: That's a dilemma for poor minorities, not rich white people.

Which is why (and this is why I entered this thread at all) a real investigation by the FBI is necessary. If he's going to say it didn't happen, we have to be real comfortable it really didn't happen. Reducing it to a he-said/she-said is insufficient, because a he-said/she-said under oath might involve perjury.