SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[Timsup2nothin]

I mean, it's really quite incredible that he manages anything north of low single-digit approval ratings.

It's not hard to understand though.

No, it isn't. As @metalhead points out, the US has a huge population of genuinely terrible people.

 

[Berzerker]

Clarence Thomas must be happy to have Kavanaugh join the court

 

[Sommerswerd]

Apparently there is a crowd-funding site dedicated to defeating Susan Collins in 2020 as a result of this and believe it or not, Ambassador Susan Rice... yes that Susan Rice is hinting that she will run for Collins' seat.

Clarence Thomas must be happy to have Kavanaugh join the court

I assure you that Justice Thomas did not enjoy all the attention the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings brought to his own.

 

[AdrienIer]

You mean the Susan Rice who withdrew her name from a nomination as secretary of state after she was accused of misconduct (and despite being later exonerated) because "the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive, and costly" ?

 

[HoloDoc]

Apparently there is a crowd-funding site dedicated to defeating Susan Collins in 2020 as a result of this and believe it or not, Ambassador Susan Rice... yes that Susan Rice is hinting that she will run for Collins' seat.I assure you that Justice Thomas did not enjoy all the attention the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings brought to his own.

Kavanaugh is upsetting the SCOTUS "One Rapist At A Time" policy. Thomas won't like that.

 

[Berzerker]

I assure you that Justice Thomas did not enjoy all the attention the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings brought to his own.

Thats a small price to pay to be replaced as the court's villain, if I was Thomas I'd be happy to watch the relief running in from the bullpen.

 

[bernie14]

They sanctioned kids in cages and a president publicly mocking a sexual assault victim. Intentionally acted to make that happen. And it was very easily foreseeable at the time they did so. You can try to rationalize it, and you probably will, but those things are objectively terrible.

What kind of person votes for that?

Hmm, objectively terrible... Ok, i think that this argument is essentially a "he said/she said", "who is worse", "my nuance/opinion is better than yours", "i am morally better than you", and a better predictor of the future, type of argument which in essence, requires a great deal of rationalization on BOTH sides... just calling one side terrible is a generalization and in this case, imo, serves you to justify one rationalization/opinion over another

Because Adams and Jefferson were committed to the democratic process. J and his ilk are not.

Remember, the five guys are following the basic tenets of democracy. The ones who find themselves temporarily in the minority make an effort to ensure that the path chosen by the majority works out as best for all as it can. McConnell in 2008 declared the GOP to be no longer committed to democracy. When the GOP became the nominal majority they continued the violation by basing their leadership in "this may not be great, but at least it will make the minority's heads explode."

So, J represents the anathema of the five guys; the abandonment of the democratic process. Being someone who recognizes that and understands the consequences, I am someone J would never associate with other than anonymously.

I dunno tim, adams and jefferson said some really nasty things about each other, personally and thru proxys, and we could assume that each wanted to eradicate the others vision as to the future of the country.... so l propose a question to you and j... if i had a star trek trasporter and paid for everyones meal, i would invite you and j and each one of you can bring a guest, making five, who would be your guest?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Thats a small price to pay to be replaced as the court's villain, if I was Thomas I'd be happy to watch the relief running in from the bullpen.

Justice Scalia was the Court's "villain", Justice Thomas was always the silent-sidekick until Scalia died. If Kavanaugh becomes the main villain, he would be stepping on Thomas' toes to do so, which is another reason Thomas probably isn't that thrilled to have him.

 

[metalhead]

Hmm, objectively terrible... Ok, i think that this argument is essentially a "he said/she said", "who is worse", "my nuance/opinion is better than yours", "i am morally better than you", and a better predictor of the future, type of argument which in essence, requires a great deal of rationalization on BOTH sides... just calling one side terrible is a generalization and in this case, imo, serves you to justify one rationalization/opinion over another

You think it's just a matter of opinion whether inflicting lasting emotional trauma on children in absence of a real immigration policy is acceptable? Care to explain the "pro" side on that one?

The party's leader supported a credibly accused child molester for U.S. Senate. What is the "pro" side on that one?

This crap that assumes things which happen in the political realm always have equal "pro" and "con" sides is exactly why our democracy is dying. It's not a supportable assumption. One of the parties has completely lost it's way.

 

[Berzerker]

Justice Scalia was the Court's "villain", Justice Thomas was always the silent-sidekick until Scalia died. If Kavanaugh becomes the main villain, he would be stepping on Thomas' toes to do so, which is another reason Thomas probably isn't that thrilled to have him.

My use of the word villain refers to sexual misdeeds and I dont think Thomas is upset at the thought of Kavanaugh replacing him in that context.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I dunno tim, adams and jefferson said some really nasty things about each other, personally and thru proxys, and we could assume that each wanted to eradicate the others vision as to the future of the country.... so l propose a question to you and j... if i had a star trek trasporter and paid for everyones meal, i would invite you and j and each one of you can bring a guest, making five, who would be your guest?

I wouldn't break bread with J, for the reasons already stated, and I can pretty much guarantee that he has no interest in being transported anywhere near me.

 

[timtofly]

No, it isn't. As @metalhead points out, the US has a huge population of genuinely terrible people.

If culture has gotten to the point where we all are terrible people, it would not seem to matter which side of the battle line we come down on. My guess would be to stop legalizing culture that is causing negative cultural trends.

I am not sure why this particular nominee is being blamed for partisan politics, since the court has already been partisan for decades. This has just been a battles of wills, with the most important social wrong being politicized today thrown in for good measure. That people on both sides have cemented their judgment and not willing to budge one bit is not an indication that either party is not credible nor telling the truth as they believe they are recounting it. It is telling that it takes members of society 30 years to get past what some in society just view as common ordinary existence. The fault is in letting the government get this far down the road, that nothing can be done to salvage reality. The only way to change the government is to first change society and culture. And if it is legal to do everything imaginable, then I doubt society is going to be very people friendly any time soon. We are our own worst enemy, and morality is the only way we can curtail all of our desires even if we think they are ok .

 

[cardgame]

If culture has gotten to the point where we all are terrible people, it would not seem to matter which side of the battle line we come down on. My guess would be to stop legalizing culture that is causing negative cultural trends.

I am not sure why this particular nominee is being blamed for partisan politics, since the court has already been partisan for decades. This has just been a battles of wills, with the most important social wrong being politicized today thrown in for good measure. That people on both sides have cemented their judgment and not willing to budge one bit is not an indication that either party is not credible nor telling the truth as they believe they are recounting it. It is telling that it takes members of society 30 years to get past what some in society just view as common ordinary existence. The fault is in letting the government get this far down the road, that nothing can be done to salvage reality. The only way to change the government is to first change society and culture. And if it is legal to do everything imaginable, then I doubt society is going to be very people friendly any time soon. We are our own worst enemy, and morality is the only way we can curtail all of our desires even if we think they are ok .

I really don't know what you are trying to say here.

 

[Synobun]

I am not sure why this particular nominee is being blamed for partisan politics

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee lashed out at Democrats in his opening remarks, saying allegations of sexual misconduct against him were part of a "calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

 

[metalhead]

One side consistently refuses to stand up for even basic morality or decency. Change my mind.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If culture has gotten to the point where we all are terrible people, it would not seem to matter which side of the battle line we come down on. My guess would be to stop legalizing culture that is causing negative cultural trends.

Where in the world do you come up with "we are all terrible people"? No one said we are all terrible people. If the line is between treating rape as "boys will be boys" and treating it as a crime that has consequences there is no "it would not seem to matter which side we come down on." Terrible people come down on one side, not both. If one side of the line is "we will mouth about democracy, but whether we are in the minority or the majority we will ignore its basic tenets" and the other side is "now that democracy has completely broken down what the hell do we do and WTH now you are vilifying us for not following the basic tenets of the system you abandoned and destroyed?" only one side of that line is populated with terrible people.

In short, take your false equivalence and shove it.

 

[bernie14]

Well, i admitted that both sides rationalize, heck, i do it all the time BUT you dont seem to want to admit it, although you did it in this very post, you see, you took a generalization ("republicans are terrible people"), justfied it with two specific "logical" circumstaces and then ended with some other wacky generalization

You think it's just a matter of opinion whether inflicting lasting emotional trauma on children in absence of a real immigration policy is acceptable? Care to explain the "pro" side on that one?

The party's leader supported a credibly accused child molester for U.S. Senate. What is the "pro" side on that one?

the short answer is yes....the rationalization answer(s) is ....what about thr poor syrian kids?... immigration is a congressional problem.... both parties have supported sexual abusers, deviants and pedophiles to further their goal of power...politicians are all scumbags....yada, yada.... the thoughtful answer is...read my last two posts

Of course, these are my opinions, which i consider logical and sound... but i am tired of being logical and want to focus on the "real" reason we ALL come here....

...This crap that assumes things which happen in the political realm always have equal "pro" and "con" sides is exactly why our democracy is dying. It's not a supportable assumption. One of the parties has completely lost it's way.

No idea where this comes from

I wouldn't break bread with J, for the reasons already stated, and I can pretty much guarantee that he has no interest in being transported anywhere near me.

I respect your thought process

 

[Berzerker]

the silver lining is Kavanaugh being an obnoxious drunk and not a bible thumper

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, i admitted that both sides rationalize, heck, i do it all the time BUT you dont seem to want to admit it, although you did it in this very post, you see, you took a generalization ("republicans are terrible people"), justfied it with two specific "logical" circumstaces and then ended with some other wacky generalization

While it is a generalization, and I don't fully agree with it, I would say that anyone who is really paying attention to what the GOP has been standing for and the actions they have been taking who still self identifies as a Republican is in fact a terrible person.

 

[Arwon]

The US is a failed state.