kavanaughs accuser comes forward

[Pete F.]

He should have picked a woman

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He should have picked a woman

He should have picked whoever was most qualified, regardless of skin pigmentation or genetalia. Stop with the identity politics for two seconds.

Why is having a penis, a negative attribute in a SCOTUS justice? Please explain?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He should have picked whoever was most qualified, regardless of skin pigmentation or genetalia. Stop with the identity politics for two seconds.

Why is having a penis, a negative attribute in a SCOTUS justice? Please explain?

There are some qualified women and it automatically disarms one argument. Of course it may not have worked, just like Merrick Garland didn't.

Currently it is a political appointment, certainly with this president. Notice Kavanaugh wasn't on the list...........

"Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled a list of 11 judges he would consider nominating to fill the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, an unusual move for a presidential candidate that underscores his efforts to appeal to conservatives.

The list includes: Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.
In a statement, Trump said he planned to use the list "as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices" and said the names are "representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value."
The announcement is the latest example of Trump's unorthodox campaign. Presidential candidates rarely mention specific people they would nominate and instead often talk about the profile of potential nominees. But Trump was questioned during the Republican primary campaign about his allegiance to conservative causes and releasing the list could quell those concerns."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There are some qualified women and it automatically disarms one argument. Of course it may not have worked, just like Merrick Garland didn't.

Currently it is a political appointment, certainly with this president. Notice Kavanaugh wasn't on the list...........

"Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled a list of 11 judges he would consider nominating to fill the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, an unusual move for a presidential candidate that underscores his efforts to appeal to conservatives.

The list includes: Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.
In a statement, Trump said he planned to use the list "as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices" and said the names are "representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value."
The announcement is the latest example of Trump's unorthodox campaign. Presidential candidates rarely mention specific people they would nominate and instead often talk about the profile of potential nominees. But Trump was questioned during the Republican primary campaign about his allegiance to conservative causes and releasing the list could quell those concerns."

"There are some qualified women "

Agreed.

"automatically disarms one argument."

OK, I see what you mean, for political ease of confirmation, maybe he should have picked a woman. That's really smart actually, you're right.

[scottw]

yeah because they would have been nice to a woman....pleeeese....


democrats love to play dirty then whine about civility

[DZ]

This troubles me as does every sexual assault accusation. Be interesting to see what proof she has that she was assaulted.

He obviously has been painted as someone with unparalleled integrity based on the testimony we've heard about. If it comes down to a
"he said/she said" argument he would prevail (unless of course more women start coming out).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by DZ

This troubles me as does every sexual assault accusation. Be interesting to see what proof she has that she was assaulted.

He obviously has been painted as someone with unparalleled integrity based on the testimony we've heard about. If it comes down to a
"he said/she said" argument he would prevail (unless of course more women start coming out).

He'd prevail in a court of law no question. This is politics. If 1 or 2 senators flip because they don't want to be seen as insensitive to victims, that's all it takes, and that's probably what's behind all this.

[spence]

Originally Posted by DZ

He obviously has been painted as someone with unparalleled integrity based on the testimony we've heard about. If it comes down to a
"he said/she said" argument he would prevail (unless of course more women start coming out).

I don't know. If they both testify and she comes off as credible it could be enough to derail his appointment. I also found it interesting he said today he wasn't at that party...if a single person fingers him as being there he's likely done.

Generally speaking I don't like things playing out like this bug given how hard the GOP worked to hide his record I guess it's the bed they made. I'd still like some answers on how he went from being deeply in debt to instantly paying off all his bills and buying a nice house in about 12 months just in time for his nomination.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't know. If they both testify and she comes off as credible it could be enough to derail his appointment. I also found it interesting he said today he wasn't at that party...if a single person fingers him as being there he's likely done.

Generally speaking I don't like things playing out like this bug given how hard the GOP worked to hide his record I guess it's the bed they made. I'd still like some answers on how he went from being deeply in debt to instantly paying off all his bills and buying a nice house in about 12 months just in time for his nomination.

"If they both testify and she comes off as credible it could be enough to derail his appointment."

Well she named a "witness" who vehemently denies the event, so there goes much of her credibility. But to you, people who help the accusation will have instant credibility, people who refute the accusation instantly have some ulterior motive. Have you noticed that?

"if a single person fingers him as being there he's likely done.'

Yes, especially if the person who puts him there, is the CEO of Planned Parenthood. Let's let her decide.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

and why do the dems care lets be realistic it happen in High school ...

Conservatives dont care!! it does not matter to them .. the guy is on their Team just look at Trump he is a sexual abuser! and they dont care ..the GOP haven't Sailed on the USS morality for decades

Because there is a Statute of Limitations. That and this smells like something fabricated. So at best it comes down to a he said she said.

If there was something today (I don't know if you have kids) and something like this happened to one of yours you would want it followed through and investigated.

Oh, and the GOP surely does not corner the market in Sexual Abusers. It is something bad people do and there is no shortage of either in both parties.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Because there is a Statute of Limitations. That and this smells like something fabricated. So at best it comes down to a he said she said.

Didn't he claimed when asked, that he said he never molested anybody. So if the accusation is true he lied under oath and that should disqualify me. It's going to come down to he said she said as you said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

that should disqualify me.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK ...you are disqualified

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Didn't he claimed when asked, that he said he never molested anybody. So if the accusation is true he lied under oath and that should disqualify me. It's going to come down to he said she said as you said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If he did it, he should get the boot. There's no basis to conclude he did it with any certainty. The accuser named one witness to the assault, and the witness vehemently denies seeing any assault.

He has also had six separate background checks done. Tuned up squat.

Her credibility is tainted, and that's putting it mildly. You need something more than he said, she said.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd still like some answers on how he went from being deeply in debt to instantly paying off all his bills and buying a nice house in about 12 months just in time for his nomination.

sounds like Obama up until he became a politician....