President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

As much as I dislike the notion of confirmation of Kavanaugh, IMHO if we follow the rules for confirmation as laid out in the Constitution and with respect for the Senate's prior procedures for confirmation, I do not see enough to deny confirmation. Now if he's a political bomb and he withdraws, okay. But if I'm a Senator, from either party, I'd vote to confirm.

We don't vote down on a "litmus" test, nor do we do so based on allegations, whatever the credibility of the accuser. If he's a criminal, okay, but he's innocent right now and we shouldn't withhold confirmation for that. As much as the Thomas tenure shows what an awful scholar and jurist he is, and as much as Anita Hill has shown she's a stable woman, not some attention seeker, I couldn't condone not confirming him based on an allegation.

This type of knee jerk reaction is how the Dems got into this pickle before, changing rules then having them come back to bite them in the a**. Play by the rules in place.

 

Republicans can’t hold Kavanaugh or anyone else accountable — because Trump is president

 

Well, Kavenaugh has said for the record, and presumably will say under oath, that the alleged attack didn't take place. If any Senator believes his accuser after her equally sworn testimony, they'd have to vote against him because by extension they also believe he lied under oath, not a quality one wants in a Supreme Court justice.

 

But Al Franken?

 

I've tried that before.
I think to be thrown off here you have to completely exhaust the patience of some pretty patient people, and it's a numbers game where I don't have the time to post 150 times a day.
Good luck on your noble quest.

 

It depends how you parse the denial. I completely deny what she said. She said she wore blue and I wore grey when I tried to rape her. I wore blue and she wore grey when I tried to seduce her.

 

Even then, as much as I sympathize with a woman who believes she was assaulted, I'd say this is not the proper forum for that allegation. If he was convicted or pled to something as a juvenile, and she now testifies to elaborate, that's one thing, "is a convicted/acknowledged assaulter fit to be a justice?"

But, what we have is an allegation however its denied, is that enough to withhold confirmation? Not in my view. The Senate is not supposed to be the trier of fact.

 

Jellyneck McConnell is on the Senate floor defending Kavanaugh RIGHT NOW!

 

And the Parliament of Whores marches on ...

 

Mitch McConnell can go fuck himself for the rest of his life. There is no “regular order” after Garland.