The Kavanaugh Confirmation Charade Thread

[Chairslinger]

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

 

Pretty soon he'll be asking if they were wearing something slutty.

 

This really could turn into the worst of all possible scenarios for the GOP because Trump refuses to pull the nom.

 

He seems bound and determined to make women the next group that goes 70/30 for Democrats.

[osxmatt]

It must have been exhausting for Trump and Republicans to spend 2-3 days pretending they care about sexual assault accusations.

[sexy_shapiro]

Trump is so bad at being a politician it’s amazing. Every scandal he comments on becomes worse just from his words alone.

[RedSoxFan9]

Republicans could replace Kavanaugh with a woman and these issues would go away, but they can’t trust a woman to rule against abortion and reproductive rights

[Firewithin]

11 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Republicans could replace Kavanaugh with a woman and these issues would go away, but they can’t trust a woman to rule against abortion and reproductive rights

I'm sure there is someone soulless enough to do it they can find

[osxmatt]

26 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Republicans could replace Kavanaugh with a woman and these issues would go away, but they can’t trust a woman to rule against abortion and reproductive rights

 

Democratic nominees Elena and Sonia.

 

Republicans nominees Neil and Brett.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Republicans could replace Kavanaugh with a woman and these issues would go away, but they can’t trust a woman to rule against abortion and reproductive rights

 

I still think Amy Barrett is more conersvative on abortion than Kavanaugh, but I suspect you’re correct about the distrust angle.

[legend]

1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Republicans could replace Kavanaugh with a woman and these issues would go away, but they can’t trust a woman to rule against abortion and reproductive rights

 

I think there are shockingly many women against abortion and reproductive rights  

 

When in doubt that a woman would hold a certain position, just remember that Ann Coulter exists.

 

 

But yes, it would mean supporting and trusting a woman, which for some of the high-level GOP does seem like quite the hurdle.

[TwinIon]

I imagine it would be trivially easy to get another candidate through that would be happy to overturn Roe v Wade. The difficulty is in finding another candidate with Kavanaugh's crazy views on Presidential authority and immunity. You can see it just from how little of Kavanaugh's past they were willing to reveal, he was always the difficult choice. The sexual allegations just amped up the difficulty.

 

Maybe they think the deadline has already passed, and it wouldn't be possible to get another candidate through before the midterms, but if that's not the case I think there's only one real reason to push forward with Kavanaugh.

[SuperSpreader]

2 hours ago, sexy_shapiro said:

Trump is so bad at being a politician it’s amazing. Every scandal he comments on becomes worse just from his words alone.

Yet he keeps getting his way 

[Jason]

15 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I imagine it would be trivially easy to get another candidate through that would be happy to overturn Roe v Wade. The difficulty is in finding another candidate with Kavanaugh's crazy views on Presidential authority and immunity. You can see it just from how little of Kavanaugh's past they were willing to reveal, he was always the difficult choice. The sexual allegations just amped up the difficulty.

 

Maybe they think the deadline has already passed, and it wouldn't be possible to get another candidate through before the midterms, but if that's not the case I think there's only one real reason to push forward with Kavanaugh.

 

Kavanaugh also has some convenient views on foreign money going to super PACs.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, legend said:

When in doubt that a woman would hold a certain position, just remember that Ann Coulter exists.

 

Has anyone ever seen her birth certificate to verify that she's ACTUALLY a woman? 

[CitizenVectron]

So how does the House factor into a SCOTUS nomination? If the Dems win it, can they hold them up forever? My understand was that the Senate played a more important role.

 

My line of thought (assuming the House can hold up nominations) leads to this question: Are we reaching the point soon where a President will not longer be able to get a SCOTUS nominee through unless they control a solid majority in both houses of Congress? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, CitizenVectron said:

So how does the House factor into a SCOTUS nomination?

It doesn't.

[Chairslinger]

15 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Has anyone ever seen her birth certificate to verify that she's ACTUALLY a woman? 

 

I think a better question is has anyone seen it....and survived?

 

I would imagine looking at proof Coultergeist's origins would be like peeking into the Ark of the  Covenant.

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

2 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

I would imagine looking at proof Coultergeist's origins would be like peeking into the Ark of the  Covenant.

 

 

 

No that's her vagina.

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

No that's her vagina.

 

Alleged vagina.

[TwinIon]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

So how does the House factor into a SCOTUS nomination? If the Dems win it, can they hold them up forever? My understand was that the Senate played a more important role.

 

My line of thought (assuming the House can hold up nominations) leads to this question: Are we reaching the point soon where a President will not longer be able to get a SCOTUS nominee through unless they control a solid majority in both houses of Congress? 

The House doesn't matter. The President nominates a candidate that the Senate then confirms (with some procedural steps in there).

 

I do think it's a legitimate question as to what future picks look like when a President's party doesn't hold a Senate majority. As far as I can tell, Clarence Thomas was the last appointment made by a President that didn't have a Senate majority. Garland was held up for nearly a year entirely on political grounds. It's conceivable to use that precedent to hold up a nominee forever.

 

I would be happy if the process became so politically charged that we ended up with a constitutional amendment changing them from lifetime appointments to serving set terms. Set it up so that a seat becomes vacant every two years and maybe it would lessen the intense partisanship of it all.

 

Really, we just need a whole round of constitutional amendments, but I don't know if I'll live to see any happen.

[Jason]

Not that I think the Democrats would realistically do it, but I'm pretty sure the impeachment process for a judge is the same as for the president.

[Jason]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

20 minutes ago, Jason said:

Not that I think the Democrats would realistically do it, but I'm pretty sure the impeachment process for a judge is the same as for the president.

It is, but other than the optics of it, impeachment actually means nothing if they can't be removed from office.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I imagine it would be trivially easy to get another candidate through that would be happy to overturn Roe v Wade. The difficulty is in finding another candidate with Kavanaugh's crazy views on Presidential authority and immunity. You can see it just from how little of Kavanaugh's past they were willing to reveal, he was always the difficult choice. The sexual allegations just amped up the difficulty.

 

Maybe they think the deadline has already passed, and it wouldn't be possible to get another candidate through before the midterms, but if that's not the case I think there's only one real reason to push forward with Kavanaugh.

 

It’s not the midterms, they want him seated before the SCOTUS term begins in October as you can’t vote if you weren’t present for oral arguments. There are several big cases that will likely go 4/4 if they can’t get Kavanaugh seated.

[GeneticBlueprint]

2 hours ago, legend said:

When in doubt that a woman would hold a certain position, just remember that Ann Coulter exists.

 

Okay but what does that have to do with what a woman thinks?

 

Edit: Disregard. I posted this before seeing the joke was already made. FML.

[Jason]

Clearly the Ford hearing is going to be held in good faith.

 

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Does anyone think it's a real possibility at this point that Collins or Murkowski won't confirm him? We fucked up with Clarence Thomas, this is far more serious.

[PaladinSolo]

I feel Murkowski is more likely than Collins, solely for the fact that the Independent governor of Alaska came out against him along with his LT. Gov. because he'd likely decide against them in cases that would impact Alaskans, giving her a bit of cover.  She also doesn't owe shit to the GOP since she won a write in campaign against a tea party moron, Collins though, 

[Jason]

 

[Chairslinger]

1 hour ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Does anyone think it's a real possibility at this point that Collins or Murkowski won't confirm him? We fucked up with Clarence Thomas, this is far more serious.

 

58 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

I feel Murkowski is more likely than Collins, solely for the fact that the Independent governor of Alaska came out against him along with his LT. Gov. because he'd likely decide against them in cases that would impact Alaskans, giving her a bit of cover.  She also doesn't owe shit to the GOP since she won a write in campaign against a tea party moron, Collins though, 

 

 

At this point, I think Murkowski is more likely a no then she is a yes. 

 

The crazy thing here is just how dead set Collins seems to be to ignore all good sense and vote for Kavanaugh.

 

I think it's worth saying that Collins may be laying political ground work for a no vote. If you are in her shoes, it is probably smart to appear favorable to Kavanaugh so that if you do ultimately vote no you can make a plausible case that you wanted to vote for him but, for instance, Ford's testimony was just too disturbing to vote yes.

 

That said, if Collins does vote yes I think it's worth stopping and considering just how far the "moderate" Republican has fallen. Things like killing Roe and repeatedly committing perjury in front of the Senate have already fallen by the wayside and now she is set to ignore multiple women's charges of sexual harassment and/or assault.

 

Far from being a moderate, this is stuff that would have sunk a nominee with many legitimate conservatives in a Bush or Reagan presidency.

[Jason]

[skillzdadirecta]

4 hours ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

 

At this point, I think Murkowski is more likely a no then she is a yes. 

 

The crazy thing here is just how dead set Collins seems to be to ignore all good sense and vote for Kavanaugh.

 

I think it's worth saying that Collins may be laying political ground work for a no vote. If you are in her shoes, it is probably smart to appear favorable to Kavanaugh so that if you do ultimately vote no you can make a plausible case that you wanted to vote for him but, for instance, Ford's testimony was just too disturbing to vote yes.

 

That said, if Collins does vote yes I think it's worth stopping and considering just how far the "moderate" Republican has fallen. Things like killing Roe and repeatedly committing perjury in front of the Senate have already fallen by the wayside and now she is set to ignore multiple women's charges of sexual harassment and/or assault.

 

Far from being a moderate, this is stuff that would have sunk a nominee with many legitimate conservatives in a Bush or Reagan presidency.

Clarance Thomas?

[Jason]

 

[legend]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

Can someone tl;dr this for me regarding why they think this is under the FBI's jurisdiction?

[mclumber1]

Paragraphs 1-10 of that declaration were pretty "meh".  Paragraph 11 is pretty damning, if true. 

 

Edit; I got my numi wrong.  Stupid night shift.

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, legend said:

Can someone tl;dr this for me regarding why they think this is under the FBI's jurisdiction?

 

 

I do wonder why they're not just pressing charges in in the relevant state, though, I think DC, VA, and MD all have no statute of limitations for something like this.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Can someone tl;dr this for me regarding why they think this is under the FBI's jurisdiction?

FBI involvement would be part of a background investigation, but they have no jurisdiction over any crimes that may have been committed.