Hey, there! Log in / Register
Not all Republicans
By adamg on Thu, 09/27/2018 - 11:03am
The accusations brought against Judge Kavanaugh are sickening and deserve an independent investigation. There should be no vote in the Senate.
— Charlie Baker (@MassGovernor) September 27, 2018
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I suppose
That if enough constituents of these Senators thumped their chests loudly enough, Brett Kavanaugh might not actually win a confirmation vote.
But, of course, Brett won't do anything that will stand in the way of their pro-life nonsense, so nobody's saying a word. All this (expletive) nonsense, including a few women selling their gender completely up the river with this "boys having fun" rhetoric, just so we can get somebody in charge who might take away clean, safe, on the record abortions.
Can you imagine that? "He diddled the drunk lady without her consent, but that's okay, because he might stop a person from making the independent decision to terminate a pregnancy that's of benefit to neither party." The living person has to live with the uncomfortable memory of some pig sticking his hand up her dress, but the developing being who doesn't and couldn't live outside of a uterus is the object of concern trolling.
I regret that the gallery at the General Assembly earlier this week didn't laugh harder.
Will, inform us...
...are there any 'Roe killer' cases even floating around anywhere?
As far as his views on 'settled law', well, any SCOTUS decision can be overturned. It's not easy or common, but I can name a couple.
Clues...Dred Scott, Plessey. Plessey was the law of the land for a long time.
Korematsu?
Korematsu?
As soon as the Republicans think they can overturn Roe
They will take a case or two to trot up to the Supreme Court. They already have them in the can and I find your question disingenuous.
There are lots actually. If
There are lots actually. If you haven't heard of any than that means you haven't been paying attention.
Yup.
"The accusations brought against Judge Kavanaugh are sickening..."
Quite true.
Too bad the Senator from California didn't bring up the letter when she received it...in July.
This dumpster fire is entirely brought to you by Democrat shenanigans.
Democrats are trash
Dog bites man.
This guy's nomination to the Supreme Court shouldn't hinge upon that. There's another entire party in the Senate which could also stop this.
This dumpster fire is brought to you
by Brett Kavanaugh having been a sexual assaulter.
There are plenty of reasons
There are plenty of reasons to oppose Kavanaugh for the job (like his partisan political career, or his suspicious finances) but AFAIK the stupid/evil things he might have done as a drunk teenager / college student aren't meaningful to evaluating the employability of a 50 year old.
If you were applying for a job in your mid-career or late-career, and didn't get it because of something you did as a minor, then would that make sense to you? Probably not.
"Something you did as a minor"? Sure, if that something
was getting drunk on a few crummy beers, dragging some sawhorses across the main road in my one-horse hometown, or even shooting bottle rockets over the hood of a passing police cruiser.
I firmly believe that attempted rape by a 17-year-old on a 15-year-old does not deserve that same kind of a pass. Do you?
That would depend
Was it as bad as it is claimed to be?
Was it an isolated incident? What kind of life has the man led in the four decades since? Boozing and whoring and raping and pillaging or something far less scandalous?
And most important of all: was he even the one who did it?
The word of one person does not make the latter true, no matter how much she has convinced herself that she believes it. And sorry, but the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. Always. That's the system we have. It's not perfect, but the alternative leads to chaos and more injustice.
Question for you
That's interesting. So if I punch you in the face and then act nice to ten other people -- hell, a hundred other people -- you'd be OK with it?
I got into fist fights has a kid
It wasn't until I was about 15 or 16 that it dawned on me that people ought not behave that way. Another way of saying that is that I grew up. The worst thing I've done since I've turned 18 is gotten a pair of parking tickets, which I paid immediately, and offended some snowflakes on the internets, which isn't a crime.
I would understand if the kid I punched in the face as a 13 year old would have reservations about recommending me for the Supreme Court, and my opinions as published on Uhub and under my other handles would be fair game, but I don't think punching that kid in the face disqualifies me from positions of public trust.
I'm not talking about legal proof of the incident.
I'm asking how big a stain you think it would be on his moral character if you knew someone *was* guilty of attempted rape at 17.
Is that something you would just let slide when he became a legal adult, like it was some kind of harmless youthful prank?
It seems to me that that's the kind of moral shrug of the shoulders that a lot of Republicans (mostly men) are making. And that's horrifying to me.
I find this discussion fascinating
Because if the shoe were on the other foot with a D instead of an R, I think everybody here would have the exact opposite opinion.
Now you can all get holier than thou and say "not me" like the little kids in the family circus. Appropriate considering the circus this has become.
Well, let's see...
Mr. Franken, could you please comment on how the Democrats treated you when you *pretended* to grope a woman in a photo and had other women claim you grabbed their butts during photo shoots? Did they ask you to become a Supreme Court Justice? Presidential nominee?
Fuck your "both sides" argument.
Bill Clinton
N/t
Contemporary
Very contemporary reference point.
I hear Republicans constantly pointing out how the 80's and 90's are just like today.
Keith Ellison
I believe he's a pretty current example, no?
Both political parties sicken me. The only sane position is seeking to limit the power of government so to limit the power of the scumbags who are willing to run for office to run your life.
That includes keeping them from managing your heath care choices or interfering with how and who you choose to love.
I guess I've just offended the snowflakes and angered the culture soldiers. Good...my work is done!
This is all about timing.....
Franken had photos of him (not criminal activity but lewd behavior) and pretty recent accusations of abuse. It was seven women at the time were ready to come forward to testify against him, most within the last 15 years I believe.
The Kavanaugh situation is just pressed for time. Victim and Suspect have to testify in one day and a vote comes the next day. That isn't a whole lot of time to determine anything.
Ellison is in the early stages. This woman could press charges (Kavanaugh's is past the statute of limitations). The victim also said a video of an incident "was lost". So there are some credibility issues there.
Don't forget another midwest Congressman (D) John Conyers. He also had a slew of women ready to come testify against him. He resigned.
Al Franken was a fully grown man
who was only a few years from becoming a United States Senator at the time he had himself photographed going for a passed-out-from-exhaustion woman's tits after having forced himself on her "as part of the act."
Kavanaugh (and there's no evidence that it was even Kavanaugh) would have been a kid and has comported himself in a much less impeachable manner through his whole adult life.
Partisanship aside, there's a difference between groping a woman as an adult and groping a classmate as a kid. One might be forgiveable in light of a life well-lived. The other indicates a defect of character in the adult.
And of course...no matter how heinous the accusation, it is completely and totally irrelevant if it's aimed at the wrong person. If I were to accuse you of having groped me some years ago...and described in excruciating detail everything about the incident...would that put a stain on you? Or would it be noise?
Al Franken may be a disgusting individual,
but not half as disgusting as Brett Kavanaugh, plus, unlike Brett Kavanaugh, Al Franken is not looking to take a responsible position on the SCOTUS.
You're confused
Al Franken was a United States Senator. Those guys aren't the peanut gallery. They wield real power, and unlike the courts that only get to say 'yes' or 'no' to questions posed to them, Senators get to initiate legislation and advocate for its passage.
Also: how is Kavanaugh disgusting? What reasons do you have to believe that that aren't just another way of saying that you didn't like him to begin with?
Democrats and liberals used to pass themselves off as people of reason and logic who have evolved beyond the atavistic urges of giving in to superstitions and mob mentality. I guess those days are gone. More's the pitty. A society is weaker when fewer people choose to think straight.
You are behind in the news
It's multiple accusers and multiple corroborating witnesses. Just because the Republicans refused to let anyone besides blasely testify, it's not for lack of trying in the accusers part. See avenatti's attempts for example.
Corroborating witnesses?
Can you specify? I've read:
Blasey Ford - stated herself no witnesses or contemporary sharing of the story (but fully convincing testimony)
Ramirez - no corroborating witnesses (and 6 days searching her memory with the help of an attorney to recall the events).
Swetnick - claiming two unidentified witnesses to some pretty outrageous claims.
Ask the FBI
Oh...wait...
Ok, I'll wait
Until they are done in a week.
maybe not
but having a crazy-ass temper tantrum meltdown IN FRONT OF A SENATE PANEL as a 50 something "professional" is sure reason not to give you a lifetime job.
Yes
...the timing is what's truly important here, not the charges. Surely if Ms. Feinstein had brought the letter to the public forum 10 weeks ago instead of 3 weeks ago, senate Republicans would have been far more sympathetic to its content.
*eyes roll out of my head entirely*
No, the credibility is what's important
And an accusation that for all the world looks like it was only attached to Kavanaugh after he looked like he was going to be confirmed is one that doesn't hold much water.
No one is saying this woman didn't get assaulted in high school, but what lots of people are saying is that she has no evidence that Kavanaugh was the one who did it, no evidence that she claimed that it was Kavanaugh who did it before he was nominated to the Supreme Court, and plenty of motivation to attach his name to this allegation given that she's an active Democrat who happened to have gone to high school with him and therefore had a way of making a plausible allegation.
You know why they went for the raping?
Because the Republicans took all the evidence about gambling, bribing, and the like and locked it away.
There is an enormous amount of discovery material that the Republicans won't let anyone see - unprecidented for a supreme court nomination.
Why do you think that is? Are they hiding eagle scout status and charitable activities?
Doubt it.
So tell us - what is there about someone who is a federal judge with insane gambling and sporting debts that we aren't allowed to see?
?
...after it looked like he was going to be confirmed
Of course, you're changing the timetable to suit your argument. The idea that the letter was held until the last moment is a ridiculous one. There was no last moment. The confirmation of whatever numbskull right-wing blowhard Trump could dredge up was fait accompli from the moment Kennedy handed in his retirement papers. Literally, the only qualification for the job was we'd prefer that you haven't raped anyone.
3 Democrats voted for Neil Gorsuch (also a Georgetown Prep alum). Why didn't Senate Democrats dredge up some charges against him?
Easy
They were still reeling from the election and the #Resistance(TM) wasn't as flush with cash and organization as it is now.
And not to nitpick a troll, but I never said she made the accusation at the last minute, I said she attached his name to it the moment his name was made public.
Lie
Lie. That's when you say something that you know to be false or when you have no idea whether what you're saying has any basis in fact. You're a liar, Roman, and not a pretty one.
Horseshit
Pics or it didn't happen dude. How is what I said factually incorrect?
Oh, there's a fire burning, for sure...
But based on your response, I'm assuming you're not referring to the massive dumpster inferno known as the Trump administration.
The fire that you're referring to was started by women of this country who've finally had enough. Women who have been marginalized, discriminated against, and even physically or sexually assaulted.
Those who shout "Democrat shenanigans", instead of wanting to get to the bottom of this case, is what's also sickening to me. You're the one dividing. You're the one not listening.
You completely ignore that not only might Brett Kavanaugh have possibly committed sexual assault at some point in his life, but more recently racked up $200k in credit card debt, including tens of thousands of dollars on Washington Nationals tickets.
So, aside from him apparently lying under oath about the sexual assault case, frankly, anyone who isn't in control of their personal finances cannot be trusted and stands the potential for being compromised, manipulated, or bribed.
In my humble opinion, this all culminates to make him wholly unfit to make reasonable and fair judgements for the wellbeing of the citizens (especially the women) of the United States of America.
He's being nominated for the Supreme Court
So why isn't the media talking about his record as a judge, and his legal decisions and rulings. Seems to me that's far more relevant to the job than this sideshow of what he might have doe as a teenager, or the fact he has credit card debt.
And charges of sexual assault should be vetted through the justice system, not during a job interview for a justice.
You don't think it's
You don't think it's important that somebody being considered for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court has multiple credible allegations of sexual assault and attempted rape against them? Woof!
Multiple credible allegations?
Think I missed a lot the last few weeks or so. Where does one find evidence of such things in this case?
Withheld documents not media's fault
If repubs wanted the convo to be about K's work record, they could have released the 100,000's of pages of that record. Instead they wanted it hidden, and released only a tiny sanitized portion.
And job interviews are different than a criminal trial. They are supposed to be.
Because the victim wanted it
Because the victim wanted it that way.
If they brought it up in July guess what would have happened? NOTHING b/c the Republicans of this country elected a sexual assaulter to the Presidency.
Did you feel what the Republicans did to Obama (denying his a rightful pick to SCOTUS) shenanigans as well?
Ford testified today that she
Ford testified today that she tried to alert her Congressional representatives about this incident as soon as she saw that Kavanaugh was on the short list for the nomination. She was getting little or no response from anyone. Because time was running out, she also emailed and then texted the Washington Post even though she preferred to not handle this through the media. So the idea that she withheld information until the nomination is simply not true.
I'd rather they talk about the gambling
And the whoring and all the other"ing" that Kavenaugh has been up to.
That would mean releasing the discovery documents that the Republicans have locked down, though. And acknowledgING that he is unfit for office AND a rapist.
Ask them what it is that they don't want to talk about - like who was payING for those sports tickets?
The victim explicitly asked
The victim explicitly asked for it not to be made public.
Thanks Baker
I strongly disagree with his management of the MBTA but like what he's doing in other regards. (Mostly)
Baker is a Massachusetts
Baker is a Massachusetts Republican, which would make him a Democrat in most of the country.
Wind must be blowing pretty hard
for Governor Popular to go out on a thinner limb than "I like things that are good"
He's popular
Because he's smart enough to stay out of the way of prosperous Bay Staters who don't need or want the help of government.
He gets paid whether he actually initiates change or not. Little around here needs to be changed, so just sit back, look nice, and watch the approval ratings soar. I'm surprised more people don't run for Governor of Massachusetts.
I keep forgetting
Most of the people I talk to are fellow nobodies who depend on the MBTA and don't own mansions, so we have a pretty limited view of how amazing he is.
You depend on the MBTA?
Why? Do you have the most amazing job ever which is only reachable via the MBTA? And if so, can I come work with you?
Baker is a hypocrite
Or he has a veryyyy short term memory. Just 3 short months ago his son was accused of sexual assault on a flight. Weird that he never called for an independent investigation there. Weird that his son's life has continued on as if nothing happened since then.
Charlie Baker does not care about this woman (if she is even telling the truth) he cares about the liberal vote, that is all he cares about here and you are falling for it.
What are you babbling about
Independent investigation? What office is is son running for? Who outside of the police would you suggest investigates?
This is what Charlie Baker office said. "This is a personal matter for the Baker Family and A.J. will cooperate with any request from authorities."
Must be hard being so politically bias you spew nonsense like this and force yourself to believe it.
The point is...
I mean I personally wouldn't call it a personal matter when it happened in a public space but that's just me. The point is I don't hear him advocating for the victim of his son. If you stand with one person who was sexually assaulted, you stand with them all. You don't make a stand for a victim just when it is convenient for your political career which is exactly what is happening. Don't be so blind to what is happening right in front of you.
Also I have no political bias, I call things as I see them. Sorry if that offends your fragile self.
Not really a parallel case?
His son got accused of sexual assault. There was an investigation. AFAIK Baker never stood in the way of this investigation or suggested it shouldn't happen. I'm not Baker fan, but this is hardly a parallel case, is it?
Sounds like he finally
Sounds like he finally realized women are people too.
When has he not?
His mother was a fairly high level official, and his wife is not exactly a shrinking violet, either.
$$$$
Baker is happy to frame himself as separate and more reasonable than his Washington DC colleagues, but he sure doesn't mind fundraising for them.
Talk is cheap and easy, but he is responsible for helping elect these GOP Senators.
No he's not
He got one vote like everybody else. I'm tired of fundraising and money being trotted out as excuses for the intellectual sloth and lack of testicular/ovarian fortitude from the popular electorate.
Baker's son indicted yet or victim paid off? Media? Hello?
As Sen. Ted Kennedy once said in an incoherent soundbite from the Senate floor (dutifully deleted by youtube) "Hello, hello?"
Based on the accusations, Charlie Baker's son should be under indictment for at a minimum, indecent assault and battery and potentially a liftetime on the sex offender registry. When Jet Blue was new, I had a drunk on a flight acting up and the pilot asked for any police to intervene. It turned out the drunk was easy to control and with verbal judo and small talk, I calmed him. At Logan, ten troopers took him off the plane. How was the Baker son's situation handled?
Baker is a total fraud and should switch to Democrat. I don't agree with any policy of the Democrat candidate but he has my vote and actually may have a chance if low turnout.
As for Judge Kavanaugh, did Sen. Feinstein conceal the horseplay (clothes on) since July? Not sure about Maryland law but easy arrest of Feinstein under MA Law as felony accessory (concealing) after the fact. Purely performance art by the Dems.
Baker's son?
Given his son is currently under an independent investigation for that incident, don't really see your point (but then again, your points do tend to be in the more alternative-fact realm that reality).
You can always count on Baker
You can always count on Baker to wait till the last minute, look at some polling data and issue a loud press release! Like his support for gay marriage, who knew when Romney was fighting gay marriage (and Baker was silent) that Baker would have a gay brother 10 years later! Or his support for the transgender civil rights bill once the legislature passed a veto proof majority.
Doing it all wrong
In order to tank the Kavanaugh confirmation, you gotta convince the pro-life anti-abortion crowd he's no good.
So, don't call him "Judge Kavanaugh" or "Sex Predator Kavanaugh"
Instead, call him "Harvard Professor Kavanaugh"
Then, republican senators will be forced to vote no!
https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10461/Kavanaugh/courses
Baker Endorsed Diehl
Then I wonder why Governor Baker is endorsing Geoff Diehl, a strong Trump supporter. Trump is another credibly accused sex offender.