Judge K, despite Dr. Ford's testimony, will be confirmed and . . .

The teenaged bytch wanted it.

Lots of girls are afraid of dying a virgin at that age.

 

Not possible.

He said, she said.

Plus it was 40 years ago.

Plus they were both teens.

I'll bet she enjoyed it.

 

Donald Jr., is that you? I can see that your dad instilled some of his world view into you.

 

It's possible, and I bet she didn't like it not even a little.

 

Ahhh no it wasn't called the swinging 60's for nothing

How can you established he was drunk when no one has established he was even at this party we do not know when nor where it occurred. Their is NO evidence this ever happened. All the more reason to get his over and done with.

 

I don't know what this "flock" is I'm asking you what conveniences you a story for which she has no support, no evidence at all and can even get the facts straight over Kavanaugh's unequivocal denial and the four alleged witnesses who say she is not telling the truth? We start with he is innocent of the charges, now get me to he is guilty with evidence and witnesses.

 

Since when have the Establishment GOP in congress stood for what is right ? Kavanaugh should have been rejected as a potential member of SCOTUS simply on the basis of his anti abortion agenda.

 

LOL

Yes we know the New Democratic Party has a litmus test that must be passed, for failure means total evisceration.

So what's the fear Giftedone, scared there is something unconstitutional about Roe V Wade? Scared there is something unconstitutional about other liberal decisions?

Should every nominee meet the demands of liberals, or they will be deemed unqualified and subject to destruction?

Might want to keep your Orwellian thoughts to a little less public.

 

Good grief your post is full of gibberish and name calling. I am not a lefty so you can give up on the "demonize the messenger" ad hom fallacy.

Then you start yammering on about Orwell who you have probably never read but what on Gods green earth does Orwell have to do with anything I posted ?

My "Litmus test" has nothing to do with the dems litmus test. My Abortion is just happens to be an example of failure to distinguish between one 1) having a personal or religious belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence (Law).

The Left loves to violate this litmus test.

The problem with the Anti Aborts is that they want to make law on the basis of religious belief. I, nor the founders, were in favor of theocracy.

Not sure where you sit on the political spectrum but you sure as heck do not believe in Republicanism (and probably do not understand what Republicanism is) if you think law should be made on the basis of religious belief.

 

It gets worse: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ourt-prep-school-culture-bethesda/1367561002/
Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh’s private, all-boys school, also fostered much darker impulses that have persisted for decades. Students who attended the elite private school describe a world of rowdy parties, where a teen boy’s cool quotient was established by access to alcohol and drugs and his prowess with girls and sports.

 

Well you certainly make it difficult to understand whatever it is you believe, or how the Supreme Court should operate.

If I got it wrong, it's because what you posted made no sense.

Laws shouldn't be made on the basis of religious belief. But that isn't even the function of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not make law.

Kavanaugh has stated publicly that there is precedent on precedent regarding Roe v Wade - so enough on that count.

The Supreme Court's job is to apply Constitutional tests to the cases brought before it.

One can have personal beliefs galore, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution, and how laws stack up against it.

The only valid reason anyone should have that Roe v Wade will be overturned is that there is something unconstitutional about it.

Do you think there is something unconstitutional about Roe v Wade?

 

No, nobody has asked whether he was at the party and people that attended the party have not been interviewed. Dr. Ford
has a memory problem possibly due to trauma, and her friend indicated that the incident happened and then withdrew her statement because she didn't want to be involved at this point. Dr. Ford said that he was in the room and at the party. What is your hurry?

 

That is exactly what an investigation will or will not produce. We have an accusation and it should be investigated, due to the importance of the job. The flock is what I call Trump's base, a flock of sheep who follow this guy even though he is the consummate liar and an arrogant, inept, divisive person who is out of his depth.

 

As you state - the job of the supreme court is to determine constitutionality. R v W ruled that abortion law was unconstitutional Your question "do I think something unconstitutional about ruling a law unconstitutional" ? No.

Since proposed law banning all abortion is made on the basis of religious belief - it is unconstitutional. Just because Kavanaugh states "there is precedent" does not mean he will not rule to overturn that precedent.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-planned-parenthood-casey/index.html

So even if a Judge does not outright overturn R v W - they can still restrict individual liberty via other mechanisms - as we have seen happen in a number of States.

There is a difference having an opinion on abortion and making law. If someone does not like abortion .. fine - don't have one. If someone does not like alcohol - fine - don't drink.

There is a difference between having a personal opinion or belief and forcing that belief on others through physical violence (Law). For this one needs.

1) Justification showing that this is within the legitimate purview of Gov't (which is protection from direct harm - rape, murder, theft and so on)

2) In cases where it is not within the legitimate purview and is messing with individual liberty this requires an overwhelming majority approval .. at least 2/3rds.

In the case of Abortion neither exists. There is no consensus among subject matter experts that a single human cell ( zygote - at conception) is a living human - a Homo sapiens. In the later stages of pregnancy there are some good arguments that can be made but not in the early stages.

The best position the anti aborts can get to is then "Experts disagree" = "We don't know". The idea that "We don't know" is sufficient justification to mess with individual liberty/ to make law is an anathema to the founding principles and the principles of Justice. FULL STOP.

The other problem is that there is no overwhelming support for a complete ban on abortion - the reverse is true.

Messing within individual liberty requires that both criteria are met. The fact of the matter is that neither criteria are met.

There is a difference between 1) having a personal and religious belief and 2) forcing that belief on others - violating individual liberty in a constitutional republic - through physical violence (Law).

This is the litmus test and Kavanaugh does not get it.

 

Allow me to comment on the one glaring thing from your post. I bolded and underlined it. Allow me to post it here for reference.

Since proposed law banning all abortion is made on the basis of religious belief - it is unconstitutional. Just because Kavanaugh states "there is precedent" does not mean he will not rule to overturn that precedent.

On what basis does this claim you've made have any connection to fact?

Banning abortion can only be based on religious views? How is that?

 

The main principle on which this nation was founded - and one of the 2 main principles on which law and the constitution are to be interpreted is that - Individual liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The Gov't has ZERO legitimate authority to make ANY law - of its own volition - that messes with individual liberty.
(for clarification purposes - rights end where the nose of another begins - this is where the legitimate purview of Gov't begins and ends with respect to individual liberty).

This - By Definition - is a constitutional republic and the point of "life liberty and happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.

The Gov't then has no legitimate authority to make any law messing with individual liberty of its own volition (sans overwhelming consent). Both classical liberalism and republicanism refer to 50+1 .. simple majority mandate as "Tyranny of the Majority"

There is no legitimate authority to ban anything that messes with individual liberty - regardless of the personal belief and never mind religious belief.

While the religious right desperately tries to come up with various other reasons - we know it is religions.

The only way to put abortion in the early stages within the legitimate purview of Gov't "Protection from Harm" is to declare the zygote a living human and a citizen unto itself.

There are many arguments one can make but - the fact of the matter it is no secret that the impetus of the "religious right" is religion.

We do not need to get into the abortion debate to settle the legal question. The fact of the matter is that, in regards to the status of the zygote, "Experts Disagree" - "We don't know"

Making law requires "valid" justification.

God says so - is not valid justification for anything - Prove "God says so".

"We don't know" is not valid justification for law nor is the equally preposterous "we don't know otherwise".

The onus is for the Gov't to prove 1) that the law falls within the legitimate purview of Gov't - this would require the Gov't proving the zygote is a living human. "We don't know" doesn't cut it.

2) that there is overwhelming consent = at least 2/3rds majority. The reverse is true.

So then .. Religious justification is not a valid justification and there simply is no other valid justification on the basis of "Experts Disagree".

Remember that because this is an individual liberty issue - even if we attribute some value to the zygote - there is then a conflict of rights and so we have to put the value of the rights of the zygote on the scales of justice against the value of the rights of the women.

The rights of the women weigh heavy on one side - The nation was founded on respect for individual liberty.

On the other side we have what ? How do we value "Experts Disagree" - "We Don't know" ?

It is no contest.

 

While I don't care about abortion either way, the flaw in your logic is that you claim the only argument against abortion is purely religious.

How can you make that claim? That demands acceptance of a belief that has no basis in fact. One doesn't need to be religious to oppose abortion.

 

Because the alleged harassment potentially violates federal law.

 

Look at you, thinking people won't understand the subtlety of your statement.
The Hill/Thomas issue was investigated because of the possible violation of federal law; the federal law in question is not a CRIMINAL statute, and so you're right, the FBI did not investigate pursuant to prosecution.
That does not change the fact the FBI investigated because of the potential violation of federal law.

Nothing you or anyone else posted in any way states the investigation was not related to the potential violation of federal law.

 

You should not be so mean to your fellow liberals/Democrats - after Kavanaugh is confirmed, you're all going to have to share the same safe space and pile of broken crayons.

 

Thank you for this meaningless bit of trivia..

 

This story sure has brought all the rapey incel types out to play.

 

Believe it or not, I am not a liberal/Democrat. Nor am I a supporter of Trump.
Of course, Kavanagh will be confirmed. No doubt.

 

What party? She can't even establish where and when and the witnesses she claims were there all deny it. Her friend denies it because she doesn't know anything about a party.

BTW

Third Named Witness Rejects Kavanaugh’s Accuser’s Allegations
In written testimony sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a third named witness has rejected the allegations made by Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser. Having been asked by a Senate staffer to comment on the charges advanced against the nominee, a lawyer for Leland Ingham Keyser wrote:

Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

Under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

Why the delay?