|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 28 2018 14:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:48 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:40 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:37 Introvert wrote:
...
Who was I arguing with about this with last night...
but you want to have the FBI go out into the wilderness and track down all of Kavanaugh's and Ford's friends about a party that when the only people Ford remembers being there say they don't remember any such party. That's not even asking for a normal FBI investigation, that's something else entirely. But this is supposed to be the obviously reasonable position.
I'm fairly sure it's not uncommon procedure in the event of a crime for the police to go door-knocking in the neighbourhood, even though any one of the neighbours is very unlikely to have seen anything. I don't see how this is fundamentally different as an approach. I acknowledge it's more difficult because of the time elapsed. That's not even on the same level as the previous hypothetical, but it seems awfully thin as something to get angry about. "Why won't they let us knock on a few hundred doors three and a half decades later!" doesn't really have a nice ring to it. The most important people in this story have said their piece under penalty. They would say nothing different to the FBI. At least to me, that seems like the start and end of it. In your eyes, why is the American bar association calling for an FBI investigation? How many other potential supreme Court Justice candidates would be recommended an FBI investigation?
The right-leaning legal circles have laughed at the ABA for years (at least since Bork). They just get trotted out when needed. Let's be real, the reason the ABA did this is because Senator Graham explicitly appealed to their rating this afternoon. This is them staying in good graces. I don't know if all this will make certain Flakey Senators balk, but who knows. We have seen no evidence, beyond Ford's own testimony, that his rating should be reviewed. Hell, his entire professional life is still in the clear at this moment. There seems to be no reason for this, as it relates to his adult life or career. Did he stop being all those nice things they said about him?
|
On September 28 2018 14:54 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:47 Doodsmack wrote:On September 28 2018 13:55 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 13:49 Doodsmack wrote:On September 28 2018 11:53 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 11:49 Doodsmack wrote:On September 28 2018 10:17 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 10:12 Doodsmack wrote:...
Even assuming that employers are generally unfair in this regard, that doesn't mean we need to be unfair when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.
... I'd also expect a Supreme Court nomination to be held to a higher standard than a common-or-garden job interview. Regardless that doesn't change the fact that the system is unfair if a mere allegation is enough to sink someone. It's not a "mere allegation" at this point. It's several allegations in conjunction with: - Kavanaugh's reluctance to have any of them investigated further - The fibs he appears to have told already about his character and activities at the time (I don't promise this is an exhaustive list.) Those are tangential and minor facts that just don't add up to much. Yes there are several allegations, but they're not all credible. The accusers are surrounded by Democratic operatives handling them, for one thing. There's just not enough evidence beyond the bare accusation. For example Kavanaugh's reluctance to call for an FBI investigation is just too far removed from the question of whether he was on top of Ford on the bed covering her mouth. Just to be clear, the way I see it there are three options: (1) Declare Kavanaugh is acceptable (2) Investigate further (3) Declare Kavanaugh is not acceptable You are saying that (3) is unreasonable; are you saying that (2) is also unreasonable? In my view the burden on you to justify (2) being unreasonable is much, much higher and you're nowhere near to meeting it. At one point I had said there should be an FBI investigation but after seeing today's hearing I think it is sufficient. The relevant witnesses have put forth statements saying they have no recollection; short of a time portal, there's little the FBI could do. It's not worth the effort. "It's not worth the effort" is a remarkably negligent standpoint for something this important. ...
What changed my mind on this was simply the realization that Kavanaugh might be innocent. You've got to realize the significance and the grotesqueness of falsely destroying an innocent person. The evidence just isn't there.
If he's not innocent, putting him on the Supreme Court would be pretty significant and grotesque too. You keep trying to dodge the downsides of accepting Kavanaugh and only focusing on the downsides of rejecting him. As such, your line of argument is fallacious. On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Many things in life would be a lot easier if it were viable to just naively swallow whatever public statements people make instead of conducting an actual investigation. I haven't checked your posts but I'm gonna guess you've more or less said Kavanaugh is guilty. Which means you're dodging the downsides of destroying an innocent person. I on the other hand have said the system should be premised on fairness such that Kavanaugh doesnt have the burden of proof, and right now there's not enough evidence. It's a matter of having a system that minimizes false negatives as the best possible system, not "dodging the downsides." Weve had a significant amount of investigation so far, and there arent any other leads. I'm not opposed to an investigation really but you would need to accept the results of "inconclusive" i.e. you dont have enough evidence. Do you really believe the Swetnick story has had a "significant amount of investigation?" It literally came out yesterday and she has said she will testify under oath. They aren't even giving her a chance to talk. If they cared about clearing Kavanaugh's name and not just putting a political opponent on SCOTUS they would look into this one more then they have. Avennati says they are being ignored. Source:
I don't want to comment too much on this (too much already) but Avanatti has handled this so poorly. Within minutes of hearing his claim, the SJC contacted him. He first refuses to cooperate without the FBI. Now, he refuses to provide evidence and demands they do certain things before speaking to her. he thinks they should walk into the hearing chamber without handing anything over. The Committee runs the show, not these lawyers. My bet is he knows this won't fly, but that doesn't matter.
Also, who goes to Michael Avanatti if they want to be seen as credible?
I'll leave it there for now.
|
On September 28 2018 14:51 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:50 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:45 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:43 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:39 Tachion wrote:
I just feel bad for Ford. Maybe Feinstein was playing too much politics with the timing, but she came to bare her soul today for no personal gain and at great risk, and in return she is getting the middle finger saying too bad too late blame Democrats. It all just feels so dismissive of a woman with very genuine concerns, but everyone is too busy playing politics. They gave her a voice and then dismissed it when actually doing anything would just be too inconvenient.
If what Introvert says is actually true, It would take less than a week for the FBI to come back and say that no one remembers shit. I just don't buy it. Something stinks. Last week everyone kept using Anita Hill as an example. That took them three days, and they got a "he said she said" report that Joe Biden went on to call useless. Now, we have some people who think this should be a months long process to search and scour the country for every person either of these two people might have known and query them about a party none of them were ever alleged to be at. I'm not sure which is worse. I mean, if this gets passed to the FBI and they say "we don't see any practical way to investigate this" then fine, we're done. I don't think that's your call to make, or the call of anybody else without expertise in the field. For what it's worth the FBI already said this isn't something they do (state crimes, in particular). I don't know if you saw those posts or not. The SJC would have to make a special request. The FBI wants no part of this. That's not really the same statement at all. Whether they view it as part of their job (outside of being specifically requested) has nothing to do with their practical capability.
That's not a question they would ever answer, I don't think. Just a guess, but they wouldn't want to make estimates like that. if forced to do an investigation, they'd try and come back with what little they could. But I don't think they'd say "we can't do this."
|
On September 28 2018 15:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:51 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:50 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:45 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:43 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:39 Tachion wrote:
I just feel bad for Ford. Maybe Feinstein was playing too much politics with the timing, but she came to bare her soul today for no personal gain and at great risk, and in return she is getting the middle finger saying too bad too late blame Democrats. It all just feels so dismissive of a woman with very genuine concerns, but everyone is too busy playing politics. They gave her a voice and then dismissed it when actually doing anything would just be too inconvenient.
If what Introvert says is actually true, It would take less than a week for the FBI to come back and say that no one remembers shit. I just don't buy it. Something stinks. Last week everyone kept using Anita Hill as an example. That took them three days, and they got a "he said she said" report that Joe Biden went on to call useless. Now, we have some people who think this should be a months long process to search and scour the country for every person either of these two people might have known and query them about a party none of them were ever alleged to be at. I'm not sure which is worse. I mean, if this gets passed to the FBI and they say "we don't see any practical way to investigate this" then fine, we're done. I don't think that's your call to make, or the call of anybody else without expertise in the field. For what it's worth the FBI already said this isn't something they do (state crimes, in particular). I don't know if you saw those posts or not. The SJC would have to make a special request. The FBI wants no part of this. That's not really the same statement at all. Whether they view it as part of their job (outside of being specifically requested) has nothing to do with their practical capability. That's not a question they would ever answer, I don't think. Just a guess, but they wouldn't want to make estimates like that. if forced to do an investigation, they'd try and come back with what little they could. But I don't think they'd say "we can't do this."
That doesn't materially affect my argument that the FBI are a better judge of what useful investigation the FBI can perform than you are.
|
On September 28 2018 14:49 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:40 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:30 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 14:21 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:18 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 14:07 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:03 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Surely you agree that finding out more is preferable to the little we have. Why would we lower the bar for SCOTUS below what even a Prosecuter would use to start an investigation, as Whitehouse pointed out? Like has been said already, there are a number of claims from these women, and Kavanaugh for that matter, which can and should be checked against what other students at the time knew. For example, why not ask the yearbook committee what all that shit in the yearbook meant? I'm blown away that people think this is asking too much. Interestingly the lawyer apparently told the GOP senators later that she didn't even think she'd be able to get a warrant based on what she heard. What lawyer? The prosecutor? Regardless, I find it hard to believe that the fact she brought this up years before she knew Kavanaugh would run for SCOTUS and told people about it show its general credibility. This remains a point I've yet to see a single conservative effectively address anywhere online or on TV. That combined with the polygraph and the contents of Kavanaugh's yearbook should raise any prosecutors eyebrows. Whether it rises to the level of getting a warrant, I dont know (give me a few years on that one). However it definitely shouldn't be brushed under the rug and hidden from the world like Mark Judge. Dude, why is this so hard for everyone. Maybe i'll let Doodsmack handle this insanity. What is it about THIS CRIME, they are going to find out? So, you find out that maybe Judge is unreliable. Ok, well two others ALSO claim they have no memory of this party. It's a dead end. There's nothing to be found except tangential character smears that the Democrats would run with to make Kavanaugh guilty by proxy. What conceivable piece of evidence could you find about this crime? Try to think of one. This is an absurd question. Who knows what we will find, that's why you look into it. Nobody knows whose story will crumble under intense scrutiny. The ONLY relevant question is whether there is enough to justify that search. Myself, along with the majority of the country it seems, thinks there is enough to justify a deeper dig. You, Doodsmack, and others believe enough has been done. Nobody is going to be convinced otherwise at this point so let's just get the vote over with. No, this is the only question. we don't go prying into people's lives for the hell of it. There is no story to crumble, because there is no story. In fact, the only person who could have her story fall apart is Ford, like when she says she doesn't know who got her to or from the party. You can want an investigation, but you can't be indignant when there isn't one if you don't even know what the hell you hope to find, good or bad. Your belief that there is no story only holds weight if you believe that Ford has been lying for over half a decade, including before it had any political use. In the end, if you think people are asking for a thorough investigation before giving Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment "for the hell of it," then frankly we are too far apart to have a discussion on this topic.
Ok, there is no more to the story then what we know.
|
On September 28 2018 15:09 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 15:07 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:51 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:50 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:45 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:43 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:39 Tachion wrote:
I just feel bad for Ford. Maybe Feinstein was playing too much politics with the timing, but she came to bare her soul today for no personal gain and at great risk, and in return she is getting the middle finger saying too bad too late blame Democrats. It all just feels so dismissive of a woman with very genuine concerns, but everyone is too busy playing politics. They gave her a voice and then dismissed it when actually doing anything would just be too inconvenient.
If what Introvert says is actually true, It would take less than a week for the FBI to come back and say that no one remembers shit. I just don't buy it. Something stinks. Last week everyone kept using Anita Hill as an example. That took them three days, and they got a "he said she said" report that Joe Biden went on to call useless. Now, we have some people who think this should be a months long process to search and scour the country for every person either of these two people might have known and query them about a party none of them were ever alleged to be at. I'm not sure which is worse. I mean, if this gets passed to the FBI and they say "we don't see any practical way to investigate this" then fine, we're done. I don't think that's your call to make, or the call of anybody else without expertise in the field. For what it's worth the FBI already said this isn't something they do (state crimes, in particular). I don't know if you saw those posts or not. The SJC would have to make a special request. The FBI wants no part of this. That's not really the same statement at all. Whether they view it as part of their job (outside of being specifically requested) has nothing to do with their practical capability. That's not a question they would ever answer, I don't think. Just a guess, but they wouldn't want to make estimates like that. if forced to do an investigation, they'd try and come back with what little they could. But I don't think they'd say "we can't do this." That doesn't materially affect my argument that the FBI are a better judge of what useful investigation the FBI can perform than you are.
no, but that's not really what we started off discussing. For the hell of it I'll even join you in your new call to "ask the FBI what they could even do."
|
On September 28 2018 15:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 15:09 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 15:07 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:51 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:50 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:45 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:43 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:39 Tachion wrote:
I just feel bad for Ford. Maybe Feinstein was playing too much politics with the timing, but she came to bare her soul today for no personal gain and at great risk, and in return she is getting the middle finger saying too bad too late blame Democrats. It all just feels so dismissive of a woman with very genuine concerns, but everyone is too busy playing politics. They gave her a voice and then dismissed it when actually doing anything would just be too inconvenient.
If what Introvert says is actually true, It would take less than a week for the FBI to come back and say that no one remembers shit. I just don't buy it. Something stinks. Last week everyone kept using Anita Hill as an example. That took them three days, and they got a "he said she said" report that Joe Biden went on to call useless. Now, we have some people who think this should be a months long process to search and scour the country for every person either of these two people might have known and query them about a party none of them were ever alleged to be at. I'm not sure which is worse. I mean, if this gets passed to the FBI and they say "we don't see any practical way to investigate this" then fine, we're done. I don't think that's your call to make, or the call of anybody else without expertise in the field. For what it's worth the FBI already said this isn't something they do (state crimes, in particular). I don't know if you saw those posts or not. The SJC would have to make a special request. The FBI wants no part of this. That's not really the same statement at all. Whether they view it as part of their job (outside of being specifically requested) has nothing to do with their practical capability. That's not a question they would ever answer, I don't think. Just a guess, but they wouldn't want to make estimates like that. if forced to do an investigation, they'd try and come back with what little they could. But I don't think they'd say "we can't do this." That doesn't materially affect my argument that the FBI are a better judge of what useful investigation the FBI can perform than you are. no, but that's not really what we started off discussing. For the hell of it I'll even join you in your new call to "ask the FBI what they could even do."
So do you think all three women are lying? That there's no chance any of the three separate allegations will turn something up if all three are investigated?
|
I don't get it. If the assault did happen(and after watching yesterday's hearings I will safely bet all my three testicles on that it did) it shouldn't matter if the Democrats are shamelessly using this to score political points. That's what they do, it's their job. Much like the Reps would have done in a similar situation.
The only reason not to have a proper investigation at this point is purely partisan. There were questions that Ford wasn't able to answer that could either strengthen or weaken her credibility and could be answered with an investigation, and she repeatedly welcomed one. When Mark Judge worked at the supermarket for instance.
|
On September 28 2018 14:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:30 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 14:21 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:18 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 14:07 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:03 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Surely you agree that finding out more is preferable to the little we have. Why would we lower the bar for SCOTUS below what even a Prosecuter would use to start an investigation, as Whitehouse pointed out? Like has been said already, there are a number of claims from these women, and Kavanaugh for that matter, which can and should be checked against what other students at the time knew. For example, why not ask the yearbook committee what all that shit in the yearbook meant? I'm blown away that people think this is asking too much. Interestingly the lawyer apparently told the GOP senators later that she didn't even think she'd be able to get a warrant based on what she heard. What lawyer? The prosecutor? Regardless, I find it hard to believe that the fact she brought this up years before she knew Kavanaugh would run for SCOTUS and told people about it show its general credibility. This remains a point I've yet to see a single conservative effectively address anywhere online or on TV. That combined with the polygraph and the contents of Kavanaugh's yearbook should raise any prosecutors eyebrows. Whether it rises to the level of getting a warrant, I dont know (give me a few years on that one). However it definitely shouldn't be brushed under the rug and hidden from the world like Mark Judge. Dude, why is this so hard for everyone. Maybe i'll let Doodsmack handle this insanity. What is it about THIS CRIME, they are going to find out? So, you find out that maybe Judge is unreliable. Ok, well two others ALSO claim they have no memory of this party. It's a dead end. There's nothing to be found except tangential character smears that the Democrats would run with to make Kavanaugh guilty by proxy. What conceivable piece of evidence could you find about this crime? Try to think of one. This is an absurd question. Who knows what we will find, that's why you look into it. Nobody knows whose story will crumble under intense scrutiny. The ONLY relevant question is whether there is enough to justify that search. Myself, along with the majority of the country it seems, thinks there is enough to justify a deeper dig. You, Doodsmack, and others believe enough has been done. Nobody is going to be convinced otherwise at this point so let's just get the vote over with. No, this is the only question. we don't go prying into people's lives for the hell of it. There is no story to crumble, because there is no story. In fact, the only person who could have her story fall apart is Ford, like when she says she doesn't know who got her to or from the party. You can want an investigation, but you can't be indignant when there isn't one if you don't even know what the hell you hope to find, good or bad.
Yeah, we should only pry into people’s lives when they are nominated to the Supreme Court and accused of committing crimes.
The American Bar Association would like the nomination to be delayed to allow for an investigation. It is notable because they gave Kavanaugh, but believe criminal charges should be properly invested in accordance with the rule of law. And they, like so many others, point out there is no reason to rush the nomination.
|
Reposting my question because it got lost in the shuffle yesterday:
Can someone please elaborate on the outcome of the 4 supposedly corroborating reports made by witnesses, etc.? There was a lot of talk about those being introduced prior to the hearing, but I don't know the whole story behind them and I'm finding conflicting news online. Is it the case that those 4 reports were supposed to corroborate the accuracy of Christine Blasey Ford's account, the night she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, but instead those reports merely corroborate the fact that CBF told those 4 people it happened after the fact? BK and the Republican senators repeatedly said that not only did the 4 reports not corroborate the actual event, but they ranged from ambiguous to straight-up refuting CBF's account, rather than supporting it.
|
On September 28 2018 20:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Reposting my question because it got lost in the shuffle yesterday:
Can someone please elaborate on the outcome of the 4 supposedly corroborating reports made by witnesses, etc.? There was a lot of talk about those being introduced prior to the hearing, but I don't know the whole story behind them and I'm finding conflicting news online. Is it the case that those 4 reports were supposed to corroborate the accuracy of Christine Blasey Ford's account, the night she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, but instead those reports merely corroborate the fact that CBF told those 4 people it happened after the fact? BK and the Republican senators repeatedly said that not only did the 4 reports not corroborate the actual event, but they ranged from ambiguous to straight-up refuting CBF's account, rather than supporting it.
The 4 people are just friends and family who can confirm that she told them about this well before Kavanaugh was even a gleam in McConnells, Trumps, and McGahns eye. You know, just the single most credible aspect of her story.
As for the people Swetnick claims to have as corroborating witnesses, I wouldnt be surprised if that never gets looked into (either because she cant deliver or the Republicans choose not to investigate). This hasn't been the most thorough and transparent process.
|
On September 28 2018 20:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Reposting my question because it got lost in the shuffle yesterday:
Can someone please elaborate on the outcome of the 4 supposedly corroborating reports made by witnesses, etc.? There was a lot of talk about those being introduced prior to the hearing, but I don't know the whole story behind them and I'm finding conflicting news online. Is it the case that those 4 reports were supposed to corroborate the accuracy of Christine Blasey Ford's account, the night she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, but instead those reports merely corroborate the fact that CBF told those 4 people it happened after the fact? BK and the Republican senators repeatedly said that not only did the 4 reports not corroborate the actual event, but they ranged from ambiguous to straight-up refuting CBF's account, rather than supporting it.
I’m going to be honest, I’m having a hard time tracking down those details. Everything about these accusations is so bifurcated it is tough to get a complete picture. And it feels like this is by design for the Republicans, who just want to vote.
|
I hope, the next time there is injustice against a brown/black skinned person, you fight the truth as hard as you all have fought this.
|
Okay, thanks guys 
Some info about today:
Here’s what you need to know about the next step in Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
What is the vote about?
The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote whether to recommend Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the full Senate.
What time is the vote?
The vote is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Friday.
What options does the Committee have?
The Judiciary Committee generally choose one of three options when it comes to making a recommendation to the full Senate on a candidate’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The committee can recommend the nomination be approved, recommend the nomination be rejected or make no recommendation on the nomination.
With any of those recommendations, Kavanaugh’s nomination can still go to the full Senate for consideration.
The committee could decide not to report a nomination at all, a rare occurrence. That action would prevent the full Senate from considering Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Who is voting in the Committee?
There are 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here are the members:
Republicans:
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) - chairman
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Sen. Michael S. Lee (R-Utah)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska)
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona)
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina)
Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana)
Democrats
Ranking Member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) – ranking member
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota)
Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Delaware)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut)
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)
Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey)
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California)
What happens after the committee sends a recommendation to the full Senate?
Once the Senate receives a recommendation, debate on the nomination is scheduled. Both Republicans and Democrats have a chance to speak for or against the nominee.
To end debate on the nomination, a cloture vote is taken. A cloture vote requires a simple majority (51 votes) to end debate.
When debate is ended, the full Senate will vote on the nomination. It will take a simple majority of the senators present – 51 if all the senators are there for the vote – to confirm a nominee.
Should there be a tie, the vice president will cast the deciding vote.
What is the likely schedule for the vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination?
The committee vote on the recommendation for Kavanaugh will take place on Friday morning. The recommendation will then be sent to the full Senate.
It is expected that on Saturday Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, will call for a vote to begin debate unless the Senate votes unanimously to move the vote on the nomination along faster, which is unlikely.
On Monday, McConnell will call for a cloture vote, or a vote to end debate on Kavanaugh’s nomination. If that vote passes, that would mean a full Senate vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination would likely take place on Tuesday. https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/national/kavanaugh-vote-what-time-what-channel-livestream-the-vote-recommend-kavanaugh/M3YrWGJg5E5aF7QwWiC3vM/
|
On September 28 2018 21:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hope, the next time there is injustice against a brown/black skinned person, you fight the truth as hard as you all have fought this.
What does race have to do with this? Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are white; I don't see a reason to propose that a racial bias exists.
|
On September 28 2018 21:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hope, the next time there is injustice against a brown/black skinned person, you fight the truth as hard as you all have fought this. What does race have to do with this? Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are white; I don't see a reason to propose that a racial bias exists.
The veracity that BK was defended and Ford was considered not credible. When there is a POC up for some charge or office, I want to see the same tenacity to either obfuscate or discredit. That is all.
For example: Bill Cosby was sentenced to 3 years in prison at age 81. The woman who sparked Emmitt Tills murder is still free and walking around at age 83. She should be in prison as well. Cosby had multiple women come out and he got convicted. BK had multiple women come out and he's about to be a SC judge. See how this works?
|
On September 28 2018 21:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 28 2018 21:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hope, the next time there is injustice against a brown/black skinned person, you fight the truth as hard as you all have fought this. What does race have to do with this? Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are white; I don't see a reason to propose that a racial bias exists. The veracity that BK was defended and Ford was considered not credible. When there is a POC up for some charge or office, I want to see the same tenacity to either obfuscate or discredit. That is all.
To be fair, basically the same thing was done with regards to Clarence Thomas, only Anita Hill had the disadvantage of being both black and a woman. Clearly, relatively little has changed since then.
|
On September 28 2018 21:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 28 2018 21:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hope, the next time there is injustice against a brown/black skinned person, you fight the truth as hard as you all have fought this. What does race have to do with this? Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are white; I don't see a reason to propose that a racial bias exists. The veracity that BK was defended and Ford was considered not credible. When there is a POC up for some charge or office, I want to see the same tenacity to either obfuscate or discredit. That is all. For example: Bill Cosby was sentenced to 3 years in prison at age 81. The woman who sparked Emmitt Tills murder is still free and walking around at age 83. She should be in prison as well. Cosby had multiple women come out and he got convicted. BK had multiple women come out and he's about to be a SC judge. See how this works?
My initial take on that situation was more a sexist one (woman vs. man) rather than a racist one, but with your comparisons to other cases I see your point.
|
And now all eyes are on Flake, who did not appear happy with yesterday’s performance by Brent.
|
On September 28 2018 21:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 28 2018 21:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 28 2018 21:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hope, the next time there is injustice against a brown/black skinned person, you fight the truth as hard as you all have fought this. What does race have to do with this? Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are white; I don't see a reason to propose that a racial bias exists. The veracity that BK was defended and Ford was considered not credible. When there is a POC up for some charge or office, I want to see the same tenacity to either obfuscate or discredit. That is all. To be fair, basically the same thing was done with regards to Clarence Thomas, only Anita Hill had the disadvantage of being both black and a woman. Clearly, relatively little has changed since then.
I think the more reasonable people have made that comparison and are shaking their heads. And you're right, it is relatively fair, taking time out of the equation. But the crux of the matter is, will this new standard be applied evenly through US politics? Will there be a judge somewhere in BFE USA, who thinks back on this when a student athlete is accused of rape and the person is lying, or vice versa, and will it be defended as hard or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
