|
Post by robeiae on Sept 27, 2018 9:11:45 GMT -5
My high school experience was clearly different from yours. I see other (blue-checked) people on Twitter saying their high school experience was similar to mine -- and noting that especially in the prep school world, it's quite common to have age ranges like that at parties. Are you saying I'm inventing my experience? It's not a vague recollection. I can name you some 18-20 year olds who regularly were at parties I attended -- and whose parties my friends and I attended. Also, btw, not everyone goes away to college. If you attend college locally, why would you stop hanging with your local younger friends? Why would an 18 year old senior throwing a party not have guests two years older and two years younger than himself (thus having guests 4 and five years apart)? In my set, it happened all the time. Don't give me "after that, no." That's YOUR experience, not god's truth. Excuse me, but nowhere did I say or imply you were "inventing" your experiences, nor did I say my experiences were "god's truth." I said this: That's MY experience. You don't find it weird, I absolutely DO. And perhaps you missed the drinking age point? My experiences are from the same era, yours are not. And I think that matters, perhaps more than you're willing to allow. Again, when I was home from college--especially after freshmen year--I went out with friends. We didn't really do the whole house party thing because we didn't need to; we could drink legally and the college bar scene was where it was at, by and large. So again, I think that someone who graduated high school in 1980 telling tales about high school kids at parties from 1981-1983 raises some serious red flags. Especially given the nature of those tales, wherein many, many people are being accused of systematic rape.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 27, 2018 9:25:16 GMT -5
New accuser, Julie Swetnick: www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.htmlShe also says she was a victim of of one of these gang rapes. Her full affidavit is available here. The story is still pretty new, but I have to admit that I've got some serious reservations about it. Again, I think Ford is telling the truth (and frankly, I think that should be enough to get Kavanaugh to withdraw, though he's claiming complete innocence). And I think Ramirez's story could be true, but also could be completely false (either because it's a lie or because Ramirez has--with help--talked herself into believing a tale that she admits she only put together in the last few weeks). But this new one...recurrent gang rapes at high school parties attended by the same people, over and over again? And of all people, why go to Avenatti? That choice speaks poorly of Ms. Swetnick, imo. Or perhaps she went to others who all refused to represent her? That would be even more telling, I think. It also seems like Swetnick was a few years ahead of Kavanaugh in school. Yet, her affidavit has these parties occurring from '81-'83, when she was no longer in high school. The NYT says she graduated high school in 1980. And she says her gang rape took place in 1982, though she had been observing such events in 1981. Avenatti also made a big deal about Swetnick having security clearance (she's worked for the Federal Government), but I don't see how that factoid has any bearing on this. Seems to me that he's trying to shore up what he knows is a weak story. Yeah, I'm not digging this at all. And I think it may have the unfortunate side effect of casting undeserved doubt at the other accusers' stories. Michael Avenatti might not be my first choice for an attorney, but for all his "Hey Look At Me" theatrics he's a damned effective advocate for his clients and being attacked by closet cases like Little Lindsay Graham dismissing him as a "porn star lawyer" would have more weight if it wasn't for Graham's BFF President Pussygrabber's propensity to fuck porn stars. Avenatti has another thing working in his favor. Stormy Daniels and Julie Swetnick are less scuzzy and sleazy than Donald Trump and Brent Kavanaugh who are accused of victimizing his clients. As opposed to Michael "The Squealer" Cohen, Brent "Like A Virgin" Kavanaugh and Donald "I pay off my jump-offs" Trump, Avenatti is a model of probity. I think you're wavering dangerously close to blaming the woman here. Who gets to determine what is "too fucking long?" There's a statue of limitations in many states in regards to how long someone can be prosecuted for a sex crime, but there are ample reasons why 35 years isn't way too fucking long and among the women who have come forward about being sexually assaulted to explain their reasons include a First Daughter of the United States, Patti Davis.Men do a disservice to women when they question why they wait so long to report an assault. That's not to say every woman should be believed and every story should be accepted. I don't believe we should take everything on face value, but I'll be damned if I'm going to co-sign Trump's bullshit when he attacks Deborah Ramirez, Kavanaugh's second accuser with his usual drivel like, " The second accuser doesn’t even know, she thinks maybe it could have been him, maybe not. Admits she was drunk. She admits time lapses, this is a person, and this is a series of statements that is going to take one of the most talented intellects from a judicial standpoint in the country in our country—keep him off the Supreme Court? He has the chance to be one of the greatest justices in the United States Supreme Court. What a shame." We don't seem to express the same sort of disbelief when adult males in their 30's, 40's and 50's finally come out and tell the world how they were assaulted by Catholic priests. Those victims don't have their motives, memories, character or choice of legal representation called into question? So why so many eye-rolls when it's adult females in their 30's, 40's and 50's doing the same thing about a renowned entertainer, powerful Hollywood producer, or a Supreme Court nominee? Could it be men have set a higher standard for women before they're believed than they do for themselves? Mmmm, c ould be, rabbit...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2018 9:59:55 GMT -5
Even as to reporting an assault you witnessed...
Today, there's absolutely no question that I'd report an assault I witnessed or suspected. Of course. Obviously. And I think I can say the same for when I was a teen. But then, I ultimately grew up to go to Yale Law School, so there's that -- I wasn't a saint, but I mostly played by the rules, other than some underage drinking and sex with my boyfriend.
Stepping forward to report things your friends or some popular in-group are doing wrong takes courage. A drunk teen who (1) isn't supposed to be at that party, and/or (2) is so bombed they're kind of vague about what's going on, and/or (3) is more worried about whether the cool kids will hate/him her than the victim (whom they may not know), and/or (4) is afraid no one will believe them, that the rest of the kids will band together and deny it, etc., and/or (5) thinks "well, if that's really what was going on, someone else will report it..." -- it's not at all hard for me to imagine a teen seeing or hearing about some horrible behavior and not reporting it.
And then there was the whole 80s attitude about these things, which I submit was quite different from that of the Metoo era.
I must admit, these allegations have me re-thinking a LOT of events from my teens. One of my friend's boyfriends hit her. I urged her to break up with him -- but I didn't report it. I think several instances in my own life qualified as "MeToo" events. Some I told no one about. Some I only told a close friend or two, and swore them to secrecy. I blamed all of them to some extent on myself. That's what teen girls tended to do then -- probably still do, to some extent.
It's easy to look at all this from the adult, sober, post-me-too "well, the proper thing to do is promptly report it" perspective. But I don't think that's the right perspective to understand where any of these kids were coming from.
The impression I'm getting of Kavanaugh and his buddies was very much a privileged "bros who stick together" gang with a lot of hangers-on. If you went against one, you were up against all. Going up against them -- it would take courage, probably more courage than a lot of teens possess.
ETA:
When you're a teen, the "I don't want to get involved" /fear of being a social pariah/fear if getting in trouble thing is especially strong. And there's a "if the cool kids are doing it..." thing.
But you know, not even adults always intervene or call the cops when a terrible crime is taking place. Bystander syndrome is a thing.
ETA:
Then too, there is a reassessing one might do after having become a victim of one of these rape trains (or with the passage of time).
e.g., you don't know any of the girls being assaulted. You, as a teen guest at one of these parties, see a lineup of guys outside a bedroom. You hear jokes about what is going on. You don't particularly (or at all) know the girl in there. You do know the guys. They say she wants it, was asking for it, whatever. You have no idea. You're drunk. You just saw "Sixteen Candles" last week, where a blackout drunk girl is taken advantage of and it's presented as something she enjoyed. You don't put a lot of thought into the whole thing.
Then the victim is you. And suddenly, those lineups of guys look a lot different.
But you're ashamed. You feel complicit. You should have known better. You should have reported those other times with those other girls. Everyone will hate you and jeer at you as a slut if you come forward. So you don't. And neither do those kids on the other side of the bedroom wall.
This is not hard for me to believe at all.
Whether it happened here or not, I don't know. But I'm not ready to say it didn't, especially as peers of Kavanaugh, including his Yale roommate and the girlfriend of his best friend, seem to think it could have.
ETA:
On the older kid at younger kid's party -- it could also be the other way around. Older kid throws party, younger kids crash or are brought by older kids. I did that all the time. Especially if these kids all know each other from their privileged families, yacht club, country club, sports teams, etc. -- yeah, I wouldn't find that weird at all.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Sept 27, 2018 10:57:12 GMT -5
That was probably the most sickening display I have ever seen, that hearing. My thoughts go to Ford who had to endure it. One detail that struck with me was how she explained how she, in 2012, wanted to exit doors when she and her husband wanted to decorate. She still didn't feel safe with just one door.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Sept 27, 2018 11:21:10 GMT -5
So the Senate granted hearing delays due to Ford's fear of flying, and then we find out she flies across the country once a year to visit family, and frequently for work, and to Hawaii, Costa Rica, etc for her hobbies and vacations. And...the Republicans had also offered to go to HER in California. Hmmmm.
Also, this five minutes of questioning at a time by Rachel Mitchell interrupted by Dems praising Dr. Ford is so strange.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Sept 27, 2018 11:37:18 GMT -5
So the Senate granted hearing delays due to Ford's fear of flying, and then we find out she flies across the country once a year to visit family, and frequently for work, and to Hawaii, Costa Rica, etc for her hobbies and vacations. And...the Republicans had also offered to go to HER in California. Hmmmm. Also, this five minutes of questioning at a time by Rachel Mitchell interrupted by Dems praising Dr. Ford is so strange.
People scared of flying do so when they need to, and don't when they don't. I know because I'm married to one. I mean, if that's your takeaway from this hearing so far I feel like maybe you're intentionally looking in the wrong direction.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 27, 2018 11:39:53 GMT -5
I think you're wavering dangerously close to blaming the woman here. Who gets to determine what is "too fucking long?" There's a statue of limitations in many states in regards to how long someone can be prosecuted for a sex crime, but there are ample reasons why 35 years isn't way too fucking long and among the women who have come forward about being sexually assaulted to explain their reasons include a First Daughter of the United States, Patti Davis.Nah, I'm not doing that. I'm simply noting that--with reference to her claims about witnessing multiple gang rapes--there are questions that can be fairly asked. And I guess I have to note--again--that I find Ford extremely credible. I believe her story and I think that it should be enough to sink Kavanaugh, i.e. I think he should withdraw himself or Trump should do it for him. I've watched some of the hearings, and I think they're a disgrace. Ford shouldn't be up there answering questions. She told her story, took a lie detector test, and that's more than enough, imo. Even if one isn't certain about her claims, I think a public office demands that credible accusations like hers are given the benefit of the doubt. But none of this requires me to nod my head in unthinking agreement about other accusations that have come out. I don't think Ramirez's story stands up as well as Ford's, because as I noted, in contrast to Dr. Ford, she was pretty hazy on the specifics of the assault and was only able to positively identify Kavanaugh quite recently after talking to her lawyers. This doesn't mean she's lying or misremembering, it just means that--for me--there's not enough there to accept it out of hand. It still might be 100% true, but as a basis for denying Kavanaugh the appointment, I don't think it's relevant without some corroboration. And I think Swetnick's story is even harder to accept, for a host of reasons, some of which I've noted. Still, I agree--as I said--with the general characterizations of Kavanaugh: he really does appear to have a been a drunken misogynistic ass when he was a teen and when he was a young adult. So again, given that I think he really crossed the line with Ford, he should get the hell out of Dodge. And I don't much care if he or others think his life has been ruined by all of this. It's his bed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2018 11:45:12 GMT -5
So the Senate granted hearing delays due to Ford's fear of flying, and then we find out she flies across the country once a year to visit family, and frequently for work, and to Hawaii, Costa Rica, etc for her hobbies and vacations. And...the Republicans had also offered to go to HER in California. Hmmmm. Also, this five minutes of questioning at a time by Rachel Mitchell interrupted by Dems praising Dr. Ford is so strange.
People scared of flying do so when they need to, and don't when they don't. I know because I'm married to one. I mean, if that's your takeaway from this hearing so far I feel like maybe you're intentionally looking in the wrong direction.
Ditto here. I fly for work and vacations, but never get on the plane without some trepidation. It's just that if there are places you have/want to go, sometimes flying is the only way. My brother is petrified of flying (may be a family thing?). Every once in a while he gets on a plane, because he must, but he does everything he can to avoid it. And you're never weirded out by the gushing praise the GOP gives its nominees while questioning them? Or do you not watch these hearings as a rule. She's an alleged sexual assault victim being questioned by a prosecutor in front of the senate. If her story is true, you don't think that takes some courage? You don't think she needs some reassurance. I honestly don't know what to say to someone who watches this and that's their takeaway. I'll venture to say you are in the minority, c.e. Damn it, I have a meeting in an hour and I have to pull myself together for it. Be back later.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Sept 27, 2018 11:46:15 GMT -5
So the Senate granted hearing delays due to Ford's fear of flying, and then we find out she flies across the country once a year to visit family, and frequently for work, and to Hawaii, Costa Rica, etc for her hobbies and vacations. And...the Republicans had also offered to go to HER in California. Hmmmm. Also, this five minutes of questioning at a time by Rachel Mitchell interrupted by Dems praising Dr. Ford is so strange.
People scared of flying do so when they need to, and don't when they don't. I know because I'm married to one. I mean, if that's your takeaway from this hearing so far I feel like maybe you're intentionally looking in the wrong direction.
The main thing I'm insinuating here is the Dems playing obstructionist and delay games with this fear of flying business.
But she really didn't know the Republicans had offered to fly to California?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2018 11:50:18 GMT -5
I think you're wavering dangerously close to blaming the woman here. Who gets to determine what is "too fucking long?" There's a statue of limitations in many states in regards to how long someone can be prosecuted for a sex crime, but there are ample reasons why 35 years isn't way too fucking long and among the women who have come forward about being sexually assaulted to explain their reasons include a First Daughter of the United States, Patti Davis.Nah, I'm not doing that. I'm simply noting that--with reference to her claims about witnessing multiple gang rapes--there are questions that can be fairly asked. And I guess I have to note--again--that I find Ford extremely credible. I believe her story and I think that it should be enough to sink Kavanaugh, i.e. I think he should withdraw himself or Trump should do it for him. I've watched some of the hearings, and I think they're a disgrace. Ford shouldn't be up there answering questions. She told her story, took a lie detector test, and that's more than enough, imo. Even if one isn't certain about her claims, I think a public office demands that credible accusations like hers are given the benefit of the doubt. But none of this requires me to nod my head in unthinking agreement about other accusations that have come out. I don't think Ramirez's story stands up as well as Ford's, because as I noted, in contrast to Dr. Ford, she was pretty hazy on the specifics of the assault and was only able to positively identify Kavanaugh quite recently after talking to her lawyers. This doesn't mean she's lying or misremembering, it just means that--for me--there's not enough there to accept it out of hand. It still might be 100% true, but as a basis for denying Kavanaugh the appointment, I don't think it's relevant without some corroboration. And I think Swetnick's story is even harder to accept, for a host of reasons, some of which I've noted. Still, I agree--as I said--with the general characterizations of Kavanaugh: he really does appear to have a been a drunken misogynistic ass when he was a teen and when he was a young adult. So again, given that I think he really crossed the line with Ford, he should get the hell out of Dodge. And I don't much care if he or others think his life has been ruined by all of this. It's his bed. For what it's worth, I don't think it's unreasonable to not grant unquestioning belief to the other accusers. I just think that unquestioning disbelief is not appropriate, either. I'm not sure we're that far apart on those accusers, if I'm reading you right -- I think I fall on one side of the neutral line (leaning towards giving at least some credence), and you lean on the skeptical side. I'm also with you that even if all the other stories don't stand up (I submit that Ford is damn credible, and that most people will find it so), taking those other accusations quite aside, this nominee needs to go. At a bare minimum, the FBI needs to look at this nominee more closely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2018 11:53:52 GMT -5
People scared of flying do so when they need to, and don't when they don't. I know because I'm married to one. I mean, if that's your takeaway from this hearing so far I feel like maybe you're intentionally looking in the wrong direction.
The main thing I'm insinuating here is the Dems playing obstructionist and delay games with this fear of flying business.
But she really didn't know the Republicans had offered to fly to California?
Obstructionist? Perhaps as a nonlawyer and strong partisan, you are unaware of the unprecedented speed of this confirmation proceeding, the fact that only a tiny fraction of this nominees record has been examined (again, unprecedented), and the fact that the GOP bizarrely doesn't want to look further into these allegations, but instead set totally artificial "this day next week or never" deadlines. I know a lot about confirmation proceedings and I am here to tell you that this is batshit, c.e. -- not on the part of Democrats, but on the part of the GOP. Batshit. There is no way there should be a vote tomorrow. No goddamn way. (ETA: And before you say I'm biased and partisan, please remember that I didn't say anything like this about Gorsuch, and indeed have said positive things about him more than once. Sure, I'd have preferred Garland, but I didn't and don't question Gorsuch's fitness to be on the court. )
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 27, 2018 12:14:49 GMT -5
Nah, I'm not doing that. I'm simply noting that--with reference to her claims about witnessing multiple gang rapes--there are questions that can be fairly asked. And I guess I have to note--again--that I find Ford extremely credible. I believe her story and I think that it should be enough to sink Kavanaugh, i.e. I think he should withdraw himself or Trump should do it for him. I've watched some of the hearings, and I think they're a disgrace. Ford shouldn't be up there answering questions. She told her story, took a lie detector test, and that's more than enough, imo. Even if one isn't certain about her claims, I think a public office demands that credible accusations like hers are given the benefit of the doubt. But none of this requires me to nod my head in unthinking agreement about other accusations that have come out. I don't think Ramirez's story stands up as well as Ford's, because as I noted, in contrast to Dr. Ford, she was pretty hazy on the specifics of the assault and was only able to positively identify Kavanaugh quite recently after talking to her lawyers. This doesn't mean she's lying or misremembering, it just means that--for me--there's not enough there to accept it out of hand. It still might be 100% true, but as a basis for denying Kavanaugh the appointment, I don't think it's relevant without some corroboration. And I think Swetnick's story is even harder to accept, for a host of reasons, some of which I've noted. Still, I agree--as I said--with the general characterizations of Kavanaugh: he really does appear to have a been a drunken misogynistic ass when he was a teen and when he was a young adult. So again, given that I think he really crossed the line with Ford, he should get the hell out of Dodge. And I don't much care if he or others think his life has been ruined by all of this. It's his bed. For what it's worth, I don't think it's unreasonable to not grant unquestioning belief to the other accusers. I just think that unquestioning disbelief is not appropriate, either. I'm not sure we're that far apart on those accusers, if I'm reading you right -- I think I fall on one side of the neutral line (leaning towards giving at least some credence), and you lean on the skeptical side. I'm also with you that even if all the other stories don't stand up (I submit that Ford is damn credible, and that most people will find it so), taking those other accusations quite aside, this nominee needs to go. At a bare minimum, the FBI needs to look at this nominee more closely. One of the things I've noticed about these type of things is that you have one group that talks about "Start By Believing" that you should always assume the woman is telling the truth (This crowd will sometimes afford the same courtesy to a alleged male victim, sometimes wont'.) In the other hand, you have a group that will assume a woman is lying unless it's proven beyond any doubt. (And even then, they doubt. My Twitter friend Abbie was raped by a guy who confessed and apologized to 3 women, the physical evidence of assault was severe. Birth like trauma. Yet I've seen people doubt her and call her a liar. There are 19 other allegations against the same guy.) What people don't get is that you can presume innocence and at the same time give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser. Not auto believing is not the same as disbelieving. It can be hard to straddle that line, but if you're going to be involved in this, you need to be able to.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 27, 2018 12:35:50 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I don't think it's unreasonable to not grant unquestioning belief to the other accusers. I just think that unquestioning disbelief is not appropriate, either. I'm not sure we're that far apart on those accusers, if I'm reading you right -- I think I fall on one side of the neutral line (leaning towards giving at least some credence), and you lean on the skeptical side. It's less that I'm skeptical and more that I don't see enough there to justify the accusations being publicly made and then accepted as some sort of evidence, simply because they're the sort of accusations that they are. I actually think Ramirez is relaying experiences about an actual incident. But based on what was in Farrow's bit--which I think was carefully written to actually allow the conclusion I'm making--I don't think there's any sort of real certainty on her part that Kavanaugh was the culprit. He may very well have been, as it seems like something he might do, given what we now know about his conduct in those days. But he also very well might not have been the culprit. Who can say? She really can't, that's the takeaway I get from how her story was presented by Farrow, as it seems she was helped along to reach a conclusion that had not been apparent to her for so many years. As to Swetnick, again that's a story that simply needs a lot corroboration, imo. She's accusing a bunch of unnamed people--many of whom we must presume she knew--as being rapists. Serial rapists, actually. And she's claiming that there are a bunch of victims out there--many of whom I would guess she might also know--who have yet to ever come forward about these gang rapes. Kavanaugh's presence in the story seems, quite frankly, almost tacked on. I could tell the same story about my high school days and name anyone I knew from those days as being present. What would their defense be? They could deny it, for sure, but without any specificity from me, that's pretty much all they could do. And that reality is why I think totally unsupported accusations like Swetnick's have no place here unless they're some real evidence to back them up or some real corroboration.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 27, 2018 14:46:46 GMT -5
People scared of flying do so when they need to, and don't when they don't. I know because I'm married to one. I mean, if that's your takeaway from this hearing so far I feel like maybe you're intentionally looking in the wrong direction.
The main thing I'm insinuating here is the Dems playing obstructionist and delay games with this fear of flying business.
But she really didn't know the Republicans had offered to fly to California?
"Obstructionist." You're kidding. Right? Please tell me you're kidding. Pretty please with sugar on top. You simply can NOT be seriously accusing the Democrats of being obstructionist. Oh, but that's right. That's what most of the Republicans are saying if not saying it the same way. "Well, it's amazing to me that these allegations come out of nowhere at the last minute and that they weren't brought up earlier in this process and it's not untypical for our friends on the other side to pull that kind of crap."~ Sen Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) "Democrats have signaled for months they'd put on whatever performance the far left special interests demanded and throw all the mud, all the mud they could manufacture. It's not like they didn't warn us. But even by the far left's standards, this shameful, shameful smear campaign has hit a new low."~ Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)You can tell summer is over. The days are getting shorter, night falls sooner, and the stench of rank bullshit coming from Capitol Hill is more pungent. I have a two word reply to my friend, celawson and those two gentlemen from Utah and Kentucky. Just two words and they aren't "Happy Birthday" nor to perform an act of auto-erotic self-gratification upon themselves. MERRICK GARLAND! MERRICK GARLAND! MERRICK GARLAND! MERRICK MOTHERFUCKING GARLAND! ( Crap. That's three words. My bad!) Republicans must collectively have the memory of a housefly if they have conveniently forgotten how completely they stonewalled Merrick Garland. Sarah Huckabee Sanders sure did when she went on the Trump Slurping Network (formerly known as Fox News) and screeched, "“The president wants this process to come to a vote because that’s what’s supposed to happen. In every single one of these instances where someone is nominated, they go before, they have a hearing and then the senators vote on it.” That's how you know Sanders is lying her ass off. She moves her lips and stupid stuff spews out in a messy torrent of word vomit. At the time of Scalia's death and Garland's nomination, McConnell, that wily old devil, came up with a whole new and totally preposterous reason why the Supreme Court should limp around with a vacant seat for a year. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”Take that pair of sentences and change ONE word. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new Congress.”We're weeks away, not months, from the next Congressional election and one which may see the control of one or both houses change from Republican control to Democratic. I know it ,and celawson knows it and Sanders, Hatch, McConnell, Trump and every other Republican knows it too. That's why they are so hell-bent to hurry up and get Kavanaugh's nasty ass on the Supreme Court before another skeleton falls out of his crowded closet and they lose the keys to the kingdom. Why can't the American people have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice this time? I'll tell you why. Because it's the OBSTRUCTIONIST thing to do and Republicans are masters of that particular game. It's also why anyone who yelps and whines how mean the Dems are being to Kavanaugh, needs to sit their ass down. The Repubs were much meaner to Garland, and they have no shame or embarrassment about it. Apparently, they also have no memory of it, but that's okay. It's my pleasure to remind them why they're such flaming hypocrites.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Sept 27, 2018 15:07:56 GMT -5
NT, I just can't compare Merrick Garland to the smear campaign against Kavanaugh. Merrick Garland was denied a vote for SCOTUS. But people still greatly respect the man, Republican and Democrat alike. He still has a respected and intact career. Brett Kavanaugh has been destroyed by this. As he just said in his opening remarks, he loves to teach (as he has at Harvard Law) and he will probably never be able to teach again; he loves to coach kids basketball, and he might never be able to coach again. His years of dedication and service mean nothing now, because he can never recover his good name after this smear campaign. If he truly is innocent, and there are many questions in my mind about Ford's recollection of events, then this is a horrible travesty for him, and it will have serious repercussions in the future in these sorts of confirmation processes.
|
|