Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

[The Rube]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I think the general consensus is investigate, then see how it pans out (minus the extremists, of course, on both sides). Both sides have already made up their mind and an investigation won't change anything.

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I am issuing the following statement:

First, I would like to commend Debbie Ramirez for being brave
enough to share her story. I am humbled by the courage she has
shown.

Second, I am not a part of some last-minute smear campaign.

(1/6)

— Mark Krasberg (@mkrasberg) September 25, 2018

Brett Kavanaugh was my neighbor freshman year of college. On Sep 17 he issued the following blanket denial regarding the high school claims of Professor Ford: "I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone”.

(2/6)

— Mark Krasberg (@mkrasberg) September 25, 2018

This blanket denial set in motion a chain of events, and The New Yorker article was the result.

Third, I agree with Debbie Ramirez that there should be an FBI investigation,
in which everyone involved is interviewed.

(3/6)

— Mark Krasberg (@mkrasberg) September 25, 2018

Finally, I would like to thank Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow of The New Yorker for tracking down multiple corroborating & contemporaneous sources. Now that the article has been published,

(5/6)

— Mark Krasberg (@mkrasberg) September 25, 2018

there may be others who are debating whether or not to come forward. I hope they are encouraged by the strength that Debbie Ramirez has already shown.

(6/6)

— Mark Krasberg (@mkrasberg) September 25, 2018

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

“He should be forced to account for all of that and to defend his actions ... It is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear — piece by painful piece.”

Brett Kavanaugh in his memo about Clinton in ‘98. pic.twitter.com/EcCY9TS7T1

— Ady Barkan🔥🌹 (@AdyBarkan) September 26, 2018

[The Rube]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I fully encourage others to step forward. It's harder than anything I have ever experienced. It should be done, though. I can't imagine what is going on in (alleged; necessary term) those victim's minds.

To those that are threatening her, that's just sick and disgusting. Makes me ill. IF IF IF these are false allegations, the truth will come out. If she is speaking the truth, it will come out. Well, for the most part: beyond a reasonable doubt, unless someone cracks. I keep thinking back to Duke, the Rolling Stone story, and the Brian Banks stories...then again, we have the Catholic Church, Bill Cosby, and countless Hollywood stories. This is why I wait and see.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

“He should be forced to account for all of that and to defend his actions ... It is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear — piece by painful piece.”

Brett Kavanaugh in his memo about Clinton in ‘98. pic.twitter.com/EcCY9TS7T1

— Ady Barkan🔥🌹 (@AdyBarkan) September 26, 2018

Lol. Brett loved the truth then

[trixR4kids]

This is the usual partisan nonsense. The fact people are analyzing his yearbook shows how absurd the whole thing is. Hasn’t he passed something like seven background checks(they’re not easy to pass as I’m sure a lot of people in the Trump administration have found out)? That should mean much more than some random accusation 35 years after the fact with no corroborating evidence.

I get that people don’t like his politics, but by any objective measure he is quite qualified to be on the court.

Then why aren’t they letting the FBI exonerate him? Why are they in such a hurry to push it through?

No corroborating evidence? LMFAO

[Slap Shot]

BS. I made the drinking age by 5 days when it was raised, my friend missed it by 2 days. Both of us when asked what the drinking age was in high school would reply 18. Kavanaugh wasn't asked what it was when he was 17.

Talk about pure BS as it pertains to his statement.

[aparch]

...It’s the same reason Garland wasn’t supported. ...

Just admit it, Garland wasn't supported because the ****** nominated him.

Garland received praise from both sides of the aisle his whole life, but because Obama nominated him, all of a sudden the GOP had to hate him.

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Just admit it, Garland wasn't supported because the ****** nominated him.

Garland received praise from both sides of the aisle his whole life, but because Obama nominated him, all of a sudden the GOP had to hate him.

He received praise earlier that year from the Right. They were saying Obama should nominate someone like him instead of a hardcore liberal. Then he did and they wouldnt even have a hearing for him. But Kavanomeansyes they have to rubberstamp.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

To quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "GET ON WITH IT!" https://www.infowars.com/grassley-sc...riday-morning/

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Talk about pure BS as it pertains to his statement.

While this is all pretty irrelevant to the larger picture I'm still confused about it. Here's what you said:

I just missed the grandfather clause in MN and I know what the age was and was not for myself when I was 17 going on 18 and beyond. If I had been asked, "What was the drinking age when you were 17" I'd have said without hesitation, "21 and I just missed being grand-fathered in for 18" because I've actually had that conversation more than once. There is no reason whatsoever for him to have said it was 18 (while knowing for him it was not) other than to try and minimize it. Just stop.

I don't get it because I'm pretty sure the drinking age in MN was 19 from the mid 70's until the mid 80's when it was raised to 21. Those 19 by the day it went to 21 were grandfathered in. This fact obviously doesn't jive with what you are saying about missing being grandfathered for 18. Either you missed being grandfathered at 18 when it went to 19, in which case the drinking age was 18 or 19, not 21 while you were in HS, or you missed being grandfathered for 21, in which case you were just turning 19, (presumably) weren't in HS, have no experience with alcohol ever being legal for HS students, and the drinking age was still in fact 19 when you were in HS. So in no case that I can see, despite you having had the conversation frequently, could the drinking age have been 21 when you were in HS. Were you just drunk when these conversations took place?

My experience was that 18 was the drinking age, which is a huge difference from 19 or 21. HS Seniors of age could buy alcohol legally. They'd go out for lunch and beers and come back to school, They would meet at bars after school, and they would buy the alcohol for the parties. People are shocked now, but my HS paid for all the kegs at Senior Baccalaureate where parents, teachers, and students all got plowed together on the school's dime. It was a completely different world and culture as it pertains to HS students and drinking than it became even just a few years later. Since my experience is similar to Kavanaugh's, at least through his junior year in MD, and given that 18 year olds could still legally buy alcohol just 4 miles from campus in DC his senior year, I really have no problem with what he said about the drinking age and would say the same thing myself. As irrelevant as it is.

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

What evidence do you expect them to find that will resolve it? I guess someone can investigate, but not sure what good it will do.

Who knows? But they won't find anything if they won't look. Which is just fine with you and all your Republican friends, and your representatives in Congress.

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Gorsuch was a straight swap and Kavanaugh isn’t. It’s the same reason Garland wasn’t supported. If he had been replacing one of the four democratic judges he gets confirmed no problem. For the record I think Trump should have gone straight swap instead of appointing Kavanaugh.

Garland wasn't even given a hearing. Wasn't even considered. At least Kavanaugh has gotten that.


But yeah, just Democrats, smearing and stonewalling. Christ, you're an imbecile.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Who knows? But they won't find anything if they won't look. Which is just fine with you and all your Republican friends, and your representatives in Congress.

He compared it to Hillary and the Email investigation. Last time I checked the FBI investigated that. Yet, the Republican ****tards won't allow the FBI to investigate this by demanding the White House to reopen the background check.

**** Republicans and **** this country.

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I think the general consensus is investigate, then see how it pans out (minus the extremists, of course, on both sides). Both sides have already made up their mind and an investigation won't change anything.

But at least we may find out the truth about what kind of man he really is.

You're right, whatever is discovered, republicans will still vote to confirm him anyway. Just another symptom that is the sickness of today's Republican party.