Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I know this may be a big D’Uh to some, but the dims have gone over the edge and taken vetting to a new low...

The sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh may redefine high-level political background vetting for the #MeToo era, applying intense new scrutiny to even the teenage years of future Supreme Court picks and other top federal nominees.

High school keg parties, teenage love interests and college fraternities are all likely to be put under the microscope by government officials as a president weighs the next Supreme Court pick — especially when it comes to the dozens of well-credentialed middle-aged white males often touted as future justices who came of age before the #MeToo movement. The same likely applies to would-be Cabinet officials and potential presidential running mates.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/ ... ing-844845

As a cartoon I posted in another thread puts it...young people better think about ANY THING they do as a teen, because as of today, it’s fair game...how many of use could pass that test???

I could.

mainejeff wrote:I could.

With respect to half the population...

Ivytalk wrote:

mainejeff wrote:I could.

With respect to half the population...

30%.

LOL - when you outsource your vetting to the Federalist society.


Personally, I don't want rapey men on the bench.


It is funny how conservatives think stealing a bag of Skittles when you are 15 warrants a death sentence, but drunkingly (being drunk at that age is a crime itself) assaulting girls is something that shouldn't follow them for the rest of their lives.

dbackjon wrote:LOL - when you outsource your vetting to the Federalist society.


Personally, I don't want rapey men on the bench.


It is funny how conservatives think stealing a bag of Skittles when you are 15 warrants a death sentence, but drunkingly (being drunk at that age is a crime itself) assaulting girls is something that shouldn't follow them for the rest of their lives.

They "own" women....why would they think differently?

Donks think you should b'leev wimmin....

Uness they're accusing Keith Ellison or Bill Klinton...

dbackjon wrote:Personally, I don't want rapey men on the bench.

Nobody does.

If it were even possible for both sides
to have handled a situation worse - simultaneously - I don't see how

Clowns vs. Clowns

a battle that only America loses

dbackjon wrote:LOL - when you outsource your vetting to the Federalist society.


Personally, I don't want rapey men on the bench.


It is funny how conservatives think stealing a bag of Skittles when you are 15 warrants a death sentence, but drunkingly (being drunk at that age is a crime itself) assaulting girls is something that shouldn't follow them for the rest of their lives.

It doesn’t matter who they got to examine her, Democrats would have a problem the choice. Everything is so polarized these days that it’s a lose-lose situation from the start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chizzang wrote:If it were even possible for both sides
to have handled a situation worse - simultaneously - I don't see how

Clowns vs. Clowns

a battle that only America loses

This one does make it tough. In the Clarence Thomas hearings, you had the testimonies of two people who were adults at the time in reference to events that happened, at its most recent, a little more than year before the confirmation hearings. In this case, you have the testimony of two people who were minors at the time, regarding events that happened more than 30 years ago, with no evidence of continuing behavior since then (and other than their own testimonies, no evidence of the original event). How could you possibly be sure of guilt or innocence with such accusations?

I'm reading Jeffrey Toobin's book "The Nine", right now, and it's a non-fiction book that deals with the SCOTUS in 2007, with the 2008 election still ahead and with Roberts and Alito coming onto the bench. And it's amazing to hear almost the same exact language in his book as you hear today - the balance of the court is in jeopardy, the next 40 years of the country, if not the Republic is at stake, etc. And the book looks back at the Clarence Thomas nomination 20 years earlier in much the same way. When there's this kind of brinkmanship (and I've said it before, predicting with surety the end of the Republic and democracy itself if the opposition wins is as divisive as you can get) what would anyone be surprised at this nomination and how it has proceeded? Heck, the guy was labeled as a serial gang rapist yesterday, and half of the population nodded their heads as if it was expected.

Going forward, and not per se a bad thing, you're going to have more women nominated. They just aren't going to be as easily tarred with a sexual assault/harassment charge. There's no real defense, outside of court, to these charges right now. If Kavanaugh's nomination fails, that will be even more so. There's not going to be any other evidence other than her word against his, and partisan Democrats believe her and partisan Republicans believe him and what centrists are left don't have the power to sway either side or tilt the decision. It's not a perfect world but it's the one we've created.

Ibanez wrote:It doesn’t matter who they got to examine her, Democrats would have a problem the choice. Everything is so polarized these days that it’s a lose-lose situation from the start.

Blumenthal just asked by a reporter about Ford's testimony and how it impacted his view of Kavanaugh and he can't help but mention Roe v Wade and other positions he's taken as a judge.

Mazie Manhater Hirono grandstands for five minutes and never asks a question.

Why are they even having this hearing? Just vote. Nothing is being learned today.

I don't think they feel too confident they have the votes or they wouldn't have postponed their vote last week. They're having this hearing because the fence sitters wanted it.

93henfan wrote:Mazie Manhater Hirono grandstands for five minutes and never asks a question.

Why are they even having this hearing? Just vote. Nothing is being learned today.

They knew how they were going to vote long before this whole situation came up. This is just mental masturbation by both sides so they can say in an interview that they considered all the evidence.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't think they feel too confident they have the votes or they wouldn't have postponed their vote last week. They're having this hearing because the fence sitters wanted it.

They're having the hearing because it was a legit claim and it should be heard. The other two that came out recently don't seem to rise to the same level of legitimacy, so those probably don't get heard. But this one's been sitting there since July and they would've heard it earlier if Feinstein hadn't sat on it as long as she did. But this hearing had to happen - you had to hear the testimony. And if it is in fact a he said/she said conclusion at the end of this, the fence sitters can feel justified in whatever direction they vote since the two sides were heard.

Winterborn wrote:

93henfan wrote:Mazie Manhater Hirono grandstands for five minutes and never asks a question.

Why are they even having this hearing? Just vote. Nothing is being learned today.

They knew how they were going to vote long before this whole situation came up. This is just mental masturbation by both sides so they can say in an interview that they considered all the evidence.

Yup.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't think they feel too confident they have the votes or they wouldn't have postponed their vote last week. They're having this hearing because the fence sitters wanted it.

Nonsense. They're having the hearing in hopes the liberals in this country will cry a little less when Kavanaugh is confirmed. Of course, they won't, but you still have to pander to them a little so they feel important.

Yeah, if anything is a good predictor of congressional Republican actions it's not wanting to hurt liberals' feelings.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Yeah, if anything is a good predictor of congressional Republican actions it's not wanting to hurt liberals' feelings.

Elections have consequences.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Personally, I don't want rapey men on the bench.

Nobody does.

Yet you elected one President, and want one on SCOTUS

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: Nobody does.

Yet you elected one President, and want one on SCOTUS

1. I elected him as much as you did.
2. Guilty verdict on Kavanaugh noted.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: Nobody does.

Yet you elected one President, and want one on SCOTUS

How do you know Hen voted for Bill Clinton ?

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Yet you elected one President, and want one on SCOTUS

How do you know Hen voted for Bill Clinton ?

Maybe dback was a Dole guy back in '96? Unless he evolved since then and is now against, as he says, "rapey men".

Trump and Kavanaugh are both telling the truth and the left is lying. They are paying women to lie and the country knows it.

It's all about winning and the left doesn't care how far they have to stoop to get power.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk