Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

LOL you say that but this whole mess has done nothing but made it more likely that the Republicans hold on to the senate and even possibly gain a seat or two out of it. I'm not sure what you think a FOIA release in 6 months would do, but it sounds a lot like people talking about Trump getting impeached in 6 months.....2 years ago.

 

Well with Heitkamp saying she's voting no on Kavanaugh it's basically all on Murkowski and Collins...well Flake is Flake, get him in an elevator before the vote and you may change it.

I expected Heitkamp to vote yes but I guess with the polls indicating she may lose her senate race anyway she may as well stick to her guns.

Should be an interesting vote, to say the least.

 

Hear, hear.

 

Also, It's not just about abortion rights, it won't stop there, it's about women's health entirely. Things like planned parenthood, contraceptives, these people won't stop there because...well...you can just look at their history, the pro-life crowd attacks all these things. It's not even really about abortion for most of them, it's trying to control women and their sex lives for their sky god. They care so much about the children then they'd do a lot more for them when they are actually born.

When it comes to abortions and 'fetuses' most abortions are performed at 8 weeks and earlier, science isn't any closer to discovering if this constitutes as being 'alive' or not and what the flip that even means.

 

You can expect at least Joe Manchin to vote yes because if he doesn't he'll lose his senate seat.

 

LOL, fair enough, that election is over. Congratulations to Kevin Cramer for winning that senate seat.

 

Well, not to go here again, but it's relevant: people have no problem with reproductive technologies that literally create a number of viable zygotes and implant some number of fertilized eggs in a woman's uterus, knowing that most will not lead to a baby. If each fetus is a life, how is this permissible for those who do not accept abortion as a legal option? It's all inconsistent, to me at least. Like, we don't want you to have an abortion, but your neighbor can knowingly kill a handful of zygotes b/c... might lead to one baby.

But that's all for another thread, or one hundred threads that already exist.

I too am surprised by Heitkamp.

It's sad this is so partisan. I think just about everyone, (including people like Sasse who've said as much), knows there are better candidates for the top court.

 

helpful post with links to Georgetown Prep alumni who appear to back up Kavanaugh's accounts of boofing, Devil's Triangle, and the like. The linked sources are pretty convincing

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaugh-hearings-perjury-claims-never-credible/

 

I thought so too but the polls for Machin show that he may not be in trouble for voting No or that this issue won't affect his race. We'll see. Like Flake, I'm not sure what to expect from him at this point. Flake says he'll confirm him or it seems that way but this is Flake we are talking about. I think he likes his names being in the headlines.

I thought Heitkamp would vote yes, hell, I think he's going to be confirmed anyways and for the slim chance of the Dems getting the senate back I'd rather Heitkamp vote yes, especially if Collins or Murkowski decide to vote yes she should just vote yes and put up the best fight she can for her seat. I'd rather the Dems get the senate back in 2018 than Heitkamp making a moral stand right now (although I understand why she'd want to) because of Ginsburg being on the clock.

It would have been smart for Heitkamp to remain on the fence for as long as possible until she knew of Murkowski's or Collins vote. I don't like her taking a stand here. I'd rather have her hold on to her seat but yes, she's probably going to lose that election for sure now. As for Manchin though, if it looks like Collins and Murkowski will vote yes...and now it looks like they will, he should just vote yes and do what he has to do to keep his seat. Heitkamp should have done the same.

 

Sorry, (that I followed any of those links), but most don't fully "refute" anything. I don't care about the yearbook stuff, but he has at least distorted and misrepresented the truth in his prior under oath testimony about what he knew and who he knew. Again, this yearbook stuff is ridiculous, but a link saying "oh this one dude says boof means fart! case closed!" is also ridiculous.

It sounds like you really think he's a straight shooter? On the absurd yearbook stuff, do you really think "have you boofed yet?" written by adolescents in a yearbook meant "have you farted yet?" I don't. I think we all know what it probably meant, as it did to most of us boys in the 1980s, so why didn't he say, "I was not very mature. We were referring to a sex act, as boys who wish they were having sex often do at that age." Period, end of story.

Again, I don't care about boofing (at all). And I don't care about that (completely unnecessary) apparent lie, but the other lies, in his decade+ old testimony, is concerning, to me at least. There's a pattern. Like with 45, it looks a lot like: what can I get away with, and what do I need to say to get what I want?