We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Can you identify the last major act the Rs played straight up, using normal order?

ACA?

So the way the world is now, the Presedency has really been downgraded in power. If you don’t also have the Senate the President won’t get to nominate anyone to the court, or maybe even courts generally?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Republicans were always going to be able to put a conservative on the Court for this seat. Once Kavanaugh was shown to be a liar with an injudicious temperament and a history of treating women poorly, they had a choice about whether to find another conservative, or to stay the course with him. For many of them, I think the fact that Kavanaugh is a liar was a plus, because it showed that he wasn't going to let archaic notions of personal integrity get in the way of changing the law to make it more conservative, a la David Souter. For others, they didn't really care about him, but took his side when things got polarized because his sense of grievance at being attacked by the left is at the end of the day the essence of conservatism. For still others, they surely had reservations but did not want to stick their necks out on an issue so important to McConnell, Trump, and the people who vote in Republican primaries.

I don't think anyone was enamored with Kavanaugh's lies. I think they gave him a pass for the same reason I still give Bill Clinton a pass for his lies: A political investigation is not legitimate. Starr wasted $50mil trying to nail Clinton on items far beyond the defensible scope of his investigation. It was gross overreach, despicable abuse of process to effect political aims.

I think a lot of people see grilling Kavanaugh about high school drinking and sex the same way. I have reservations about Kavanaugh because he worked for Starr, and because I think he lied when he said he did not recall any episode with Ford. That lie, to me, is relevant. Lying to some shmuck senator who's trying to trip you up on whether you were a virgin in high school is forgivable. A sleazy question like that doesn't deserve an honest answer.

You point on the essence of conservatism being reactive has some weight. I think a lot of them are reactive. But I think here, their wallowing in "grievance culture" is warranted. Ford's charge against Kavanaugh was legitimate and deserved investigation and public vetting. But what developed around it was irrational and scary. The people who asserted it was a moral failing not to immediately and fully believe Ford, or any other woman making an accusation, are objectively demented. That's a perverted way to think not only about sex assault allegations, but any type of accusation. And I don't need to explain why. And the attacks on Kavanaugh, and white males of some means generally, based on their high school partying, were invalid. They were clearly designed to stoke class, race, and sex divisions. No SCOTUS justice should have to atone for partying in HS, or for generally falling into a "frat bro" category. I know a number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents found this disturbing. Not only because it's lurid, steeped largely in irrational emotion, but because it completely obscures the sole finite issue at hand: Whether Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault.

I agree that a lot of people took Kavanaugh's side only after things became polarized. But from what I saw, and what I've read, they did so because that polarization was insane. Many of Kavanaugh's opponents took on a mob mentality. They wanted a hanging. The media wanted a battle at the hearing and to create any even bigger narrative about a battle between white men and #metoo going into the November elections. It's not irrational, and indeed quite sensible, for a male to see that unfolding and say, "I'm with him."

I would not have voted for Kavanaugh because of the Starr connection. I view Starr as a poisonous creature, a modern Torquemada -- a vicious, moralizing bully and hypocrite of the first order (See his Baylor cover-up scandal). But even I was taken aback when people started attacking Kavanaugh for being a jock and drinking in HS. That's not valid attack ammunition in regard to any candidate.

Schumer fucked up in getting too cute with the timing. The media fucked up in overheating the whole dispute into a broader culture war of sorts. And the Senate fucked up by failing to focus solely on what went on in that bedroom 36 years ago. The entirety of the questioning should have been about the details of what took place in that room, and asking Kavanaugh why Ford would make up such a story. Why she'd put herself out there. Why she'd put another witness in the room, making lying about it all the more difficult.

But the forces arrayed against Kavanaugh could not do that. They couldn't attack with a laser-like focus on the alleged assault alone. Instead, it became a giant #metoo media carnival, which gave politicians cover to get behind Kavanaugh. Consequently, we've got a guy who likely lied about a sexual assault on SCOTUS, and a reinvigorated GOP base rolling into November.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

with Kavanaugh's

Somehow it started with him saying Roe is the law, then after he got confirmed I saw that "he said he will overturn Roe." did he say something that stated or even implied, Roe is toast? I find either version plausible- that the guy gave a big f u, or that the left has built up a demon that might be a bit much- just wondering what facts there are on that point?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Schumer fucked up in getting too cute with the timing. The media fucked up in overheating the whole dispute into a broader culture war of sorts. .

They fucked up so badly that a nomination that was slated to fly right through came down to the last minute and was seriously in doubt, all while the Dems never had the votes to stop it. Okay.

And the Trump base that's pumped to conform the racist has a month to simmer down, and they will.

Also, the Dems had no ability to make the hearing focusing on one this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

They fucked up so badly that a nomination that was slated to fly right through came down to the last minute and was seriously in doubt, all while the Dems never had the votes to stop it. Okay.

And the Trump base that's pumped to conform the racist has a month to simmer down, and they will.

Also, the Dems had no ability to make the hearing focusing on one this.

Coffee’s for closers.

Whitehouse is an ex-prosecutor. He could’ve pounded BK on the details in her story and the ludicrousness of assuming she’d made it all up. Instead he got into an argument with the nominee about beer.

You win cases by pounding your one great argument over and over and over. Not having Booker say dimwit things like “she told her truth.”

The base was dormant. Now it’s not. Is that an improvement for the Ds?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Somehow it started with him saying Roe is the law, then after he got confirmed I saw that "he said he will overturn Roe." did he say something that stated or even implied, Roe is toast? I find either version plausible- that the guy gave a big f u, or that the left has built up a demon that might be a bit much- just wondering what facts there are on that point?

Roe isn’t toast. That’s PR. More overheated rhetoric.*

Only Barrett would you with Roe. And thanks to beer guy getting on the Court, we don’t have to have them nominate that religious lunatic.

But hey... I’m the guy who said Trump has no chance. Caveat emptor.

_____
* BK is establishment, with a slightly harder right right lean than most in that camp. No sane establishment person will undo the right to an abortion. It’s political death for the GOP. They know that.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Roe isn’t toast. That’s PR. More overheated rhetoric.*

Only Barrett would you with Roe. And thanks to beer guy getting on the Court, we don’t have to have them nominate that religious lunatic.

But hey... I’m the guy who said Trump has no chance. Caveat emptor.

_____
* BK is establishment, with a slightly harder right right lean than most in that camp. No sane establishment person will undo the right to an abortion. It’s political death for the GOP. They know that.

Do you work for the Times or something? This level of dimwitted is usually cowardice in the face of bias allegations.

Roe is toast. They will approve any and every abortion restriction that gets to the court. Roe won't mean anything, even if they decline to overtly overrule it (I'm not certain they won't).

Kavanaugh has been programmed since law school to do this task. It is the only believable reason why McConnel would choose conformation now over drawing it out for electoral advantage.

Barrett mighta been more likely to find a fetal right to life, but Brett's job is to gut Roe and he will do it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Do you work for the Times or something? This level of dimwitted is usually cowardice in the face of bias allegations.

Roe is toast. They will approve any and every abortion restriction that gets to the court. Roe won't mean anything, even if they decline to overtly overrule it (I'm not certain they won't).

Kavanaugh has been programmed since law school to do this task. It is the only believable reason why McConnel would choose conformation now over drawing it out for electoral advantage.

Barrett mighta been more likely to find a fetal right to life, but Brett's job is to gut Roe and he will do it.

I can't wait for all of you to have your 2000 post discussion next week, but in the meantime, so I don't have to pick a side between sebby and you, did Kavanaugh say something? I've heard nothing, other than the standard "it is the law."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Bullshit- his action was a step towards this. Might have built on something R and hateful from before, but the whole "tomorrow doesn't matter" attitude in the senate is fucked and did not start today. No offense.

Nor did it start with Reid. No offense. You've just seen the Republicans put a lying hack, intemperate hack with a history of treating women poorly on the Supreme Court. You think McConnell wouldn't have found a way to do that if Reid hadn't done what he did and he couldn't get enough Democratic Senators to go along? If so, you are nuts.

You don't really think that. You are just hearing me say the Democrats are innocent in all of this. That's not what I'm saying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

no offense but I'll rely on sebby's take from his cocktail parties about how Rs think instead of your take from berkeley.

No offense taken, but if you have a better explanation of why they voted for Kavanaugh yesterday, I'm all ears.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think anyone was enamored with Kavanaugh's lies. I think they gave him a pass for the same reason I still give Bill Clinton a pass for his lies: A political investigation is not legitimate. Starr wasted $50mil trying to nail Clinton on items far beyond the defensible scope of his investigation. It was gross overreach, despicable abuse of process to effect political aims.

I think a lot of people see grilling Kavanaugh about high school drinking and sex the same way. I have reservations about Kavanaugh because he worked for Starr, and because I think he lied when he said he did not recall any episode with Ford. That lie, to me, is relevant. Lying to some shmuck senator who's trying to trip you up on whether you were a virgin in high school is forgivable. A sleazy question like that doesn't deserve an honest answer.

Kavanaugh was a liar before Dr. Blasey Ford came forward.

You point on the essence of conservatism being reactive has some weight. I think a lot of them are reactive. But I think here, their wallowing in "grievance culture" is warranted. Ford's charge against Kavanaugh was legitimate and deserved investigation and public vetting. But what developed around it was irrational and scary. The people who asserted it was a moral failing not to immediately and fully believe Ford, or any other woman making an accusation, are objectively demented. That's a perverted way to think not only about sex assault allegations, but any type of accusation. And I don't need to explain why. And the attacks on Kavanaugh, and white males of some means generally, based on their high school partying, were invalid. They were clearly designed to stoke class, race, and sex divisions. No SCOTUS justice should have to atone for partying in HS, or for generally falling into a "frat bro" category. I know a number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents found this disturbing. Not only because it's lurid, steeped largely in irrational emotion, but because it completely obscures the sole finite issue at hand: Whether Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault.

That wasn't the issue, either. The question was whether he should be named to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, not whether he should be charged with (or was guilty of) a crime.

I agree that a lot of people took Kavanaugh's side only after things became polarized. But from what I saw, and what I've read, they did so because that polarization was insane.

I'm going to stop you right there. No shit, Sherlock. That's how polarization works. People feel like they need to pick sides, so they do.

Many of Kavanaugh's opponents took on a mob mentality. They wanted a hanging. The media wanted a battle at the hearing and to create any even bigger narrative about a battle between white men and #metoo going into the November elections. It's not irrational, and indeed quite sensible, for a male to see that unfolding and say, "I'm with him."

If the Senate had been voting on whether or now to name Kavanaugh's opponents to the Supreme Court, this line of thinking would be more compelling. If you are trying to explain how people talked themselves into voting for Kavanaugh, I agree with you. They decided that they had to pick a side, and that voting not to confirm him was the same thing as supporting his enemies.

You seem to have a little more sympathy for that point of view than I do. Maybe not.

Schumer fucked up in getting too cute with the timing.

Schumer didn't fuck anything up. He fundamentally had no control over anything, because the Republicans do.

The media fucked up in overheating the whole dispute into a broader culture war of sorts.

There is no article in the Constitution that says the media has any responsibility to do anything. They sell ads. That's what they do.

And the Senate fucked up by failing to focus solely on what went on in that bedroom 36 years ago. The entirety of the questioning should have been about the details of what took place in that room, and asking Kavanaugh why Ford would make up such a story. Why she'd put herself out there. Why she'd put another witness in the room, making lying about it all the more difficult.

Obviously, Republicans didn't want to do that.

But the forces arrayed against Kavanaugh could not do that. They couldn't attack with a laser-like focus on the alleged assault alone. Instead, it became a giant #metoo media carnival, which gave politicians cover to get behind Kavanaugh. Consequently, we've got a guy who likely lied about a sexual assault on SCOTUS, and a reinvigorated GOP base rolling into November.

Yes, it's not just Harry Reid's fault that Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, it's also the Democrats who voted against him. Well done. If only the Democrats had done something just a little different, Senator Collins would have let Charlie Brown kick the football this time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Somehow it started with him saying Roe is the law, then after he got confirmed I saw that "he said he will overturn Roe." did he say something that stated or even implied, Roe is toast? I find either version plausible- that the guy gave a big f u, or that the left has built up a demon that might be a bit much- just wondering what facts there are on that point?

Sure he said that Roe was the law. Abood was the law too until five justices voted to change it.

The whole point of what the Federalist Society is trying to do is to change the law by putting conservatives on the Court. Is that a mystery to you? It's only been going on for decades.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No offense taken, but if you have a better explanation of why they voted for Kavanaugh yesterday, I'm all ears.

Kavanaugh got what would work:

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No offense taken, but if you have a better explanation of why they voted for Kavanaugh yesterday, I'm all ears.

The process was adversarial. Are you aware of any adversaries who do not take the win when they know they can? You know of any shrewd opponent who says, “Despite this thing being as contentious as hell, I think I’ll wait and try to notch the W later.”

It’s irrational not to vote for him now if you’re interested in giving your party control of SCOTUS.

You’ve argued to judges. When you get what you need, shut up and sit down. Nothing good comes from further debate or discussion.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Kavanaugh got what would work:

And your criticism there would be?

This is the game engaged. He’d no choice but to play. I thought his play was crazy. My misperception explains a lot about why he’s at the top of the political mountain and I’m here arguing with you. That or he just got lucky. One never knows.