So we've got an explicit threat from Lindsay Graham that there are going to be false allegations against Democrats and a veiled, less specific threat from Kavanaugh.
I hope this is just two angry men being bitter, and not some budding GOP strategy.
So we've got an explicit threat from Lindsay Graham that there are going to be false allegations against Democrats and a veiled, less specific threat from Kavanaugh.
I hope this is just two angry men being bitter, and not some budding GOP strategy.
Well I think it's strategy in light of the fifty thousand charges against the doxxer guy. Talk about overreaction. Trump has tweeted several times that the Justice Dept should be used against his politicial enemies. If they complain then they can appeal it to the illegitimate wing of the Republican party known as the Supreme Court.
So we've got an explicit threat from Lindsay Graham that there are going to be false allegations against Democrats and a veiled, less specific threat from Kavanaugh.
I hope this is just two angry men being bitter, and not some budding GOP strategy.
I appreciate your optimism but fear you are going to be sorely disappointed in the answer to your question.
I'd add that, unlike me, @semiticgod goes out of his way in most arguments to try find good faith among Republicans/conservatives. His posting and moderating history speaks to that. The fact that he has absolutely thrown up his hands over this nomination should be an indicator to everyone about how bad it is.
I just got the chance after I got home to listen to Susan Collin's speech, and I have to say that listening to Republicans CONSTANTLY talk about how the process has been broken while purposefully ignoring Merrick Garland is enough to make my f*****g head explode. Person after person, they just stand there without shame and try make us think it didn't happen.
@jjstraka34 It might be good to step away from your media feeds for a while. Listen to music, something that takes your mind off Politics. Check out the humor thread here. You might calm down a bit. But we don't want to lose you to a cranial explosion.
I'd add that, unlike me, @semiticgod goes out of his way in most arguments to try find good faith among Republicans/conservatives. His posting and moderating history speaks to that. The fact that he has absolutely thrown up his hands over this nomination should be an indicator to everyone about how bad it is.
I do still think Republican and conservative citizens are "honest competitors," which is how I've said John McCain saw liberals: as well-meaning people who were wrong about certain issues, but who were still committed to the public good. I think that's the realistic view of each side, and I think that's how Republicans and Democrats should see each other. We disagree on methods, but we have the same goals: promoting the strength of the United States, the welfare of its people, and the safety of the global environment.
But yeah... my faith in the Republican party's politicians has never been so low. I've never felt less optimistic about the future of our politics.
I thought Lindsey Graham was a moderate, and I simply don't see that anymore. There are plenty of reasonable, non-partisan reasons to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination that don't require placing any level of trust, no matter how small, in Dr. Ford or any of Kavanaugh's opponents or critics. If a Democratic nominee had encountered these allegations and reacted to them the way Kavanaugh did, there's no way Senate Republicans would have accepted any excuses for his or her rage or any "maybes" about their fitness to be a justice.
Kavanaugh is getting confirmed for one reason: because he's a Republican. No other factors were relevant. We know that because no other factors played a role in his confirmation.
Precisely one Republican is going to vote "no" on Kavanaugh: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She doesn't fully believe Dr. Ford and all the allegations against Kavanaugh, and she even sympathizes with him (so she certainly doesn't share my views), but the doubt about his fitness apparently was enough to sway her vote. She deserves some credit for considering the situation from a position of principles rather than partisanship.
And that's it. For every other Republican in the Senate, every disqualifying factor about Kavanaugh only convinced them that the Democrats were scheming to make him look bad.
This entire episode has been very shocking to me. I was shocked when I heard Kavanaugh shouting, I was shocked when I heard Graham shouting, and I was shocked when I heard that Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed in spite of everything (I doubt anything will stand in the way at this point). I did not expect the bad faith behind the investigation and the hearing, or the refusal to even consider the possibility, the risk, that Kavanaugh was anything but a perfectly pure soul. And that's just...
Crushing.
I don't have another word for it. It feels like a betrayal. I never expected the Republican-controlled Senate to confirm a moderate like Merrick Garland or anything like that, but this?
I can't trust the GOP leadership to keep criminals out of the Supreme Court.
I'll give one piece of advice to anyone who wants to run against Susan Collins in Maine in 2020. Make your announcement TOMORROW. Do not wait even another 24 hours.
So you are saying it's okay to ignore laws if you can get away with it. That's Trump's life story right there. And it's that attitude that has turning the US into a banana republic. Laws are for thee, not me.
This is NOT what I said, and you know it. What I said was "innocent until proven guilty" IS our system of laws and justice.
No, that is NOT what you said.
You said "Then he is innocent of that charge."
That is NOT correct.
He has "not been found guilty."
Lots of people are guilty of all sorts of things, but may not be prosecuted because the prosecutors feel there is not enough evidence to sustain a conviction.
MORE evidence that Kavanaugh and those around him were ANTICIPATING the sexual assault charges before they should have had any way to do so. We now have ACTUAL text messages:
They always knew this was coming because they all knew he did it. There is no other explanation for this. There is going to be LOADS more reporting on this. And it will all pile up and pile up after he is on the Court.
Oh, and in what is the inevitable ending to this day, you know that Editorial page Kavanaugh published his defense in yesterday. Here they are, in all their glory:
Kavanaugh will be impeached for lying during his confirmation.
Republicans you won this - a rapist lying frat boy alcoholic who will sell out your rights to corporations. This is what you wanted?
By making it all or nothing win or lose, we will win and make things right. Win at any cost, right. Completely disgusting.
Americans will lose rights. Net neutrality? Gone. Abortion? Gone. Gay rights? Gone. Gerrymandering? Confirmed. Justice? Not for Trump, he's above the law he's got his ringer on the Court.
Democracy is lost because you didn't like Hillary's emails so you sold the country to a conman and your elected leaders have been revealed as corporate sellout yes-men and women.
Democrats will be forced to reshape the Supreme Court because it's completely illegitimate now.
Joe Mancin is completely worthless. His claims to be a Democrat but he consistently votes for Trump's agenda. There is no purity test per session but when you consistently prop up the other parties wordy ideas you are worse than worthless - you are harmful.
If ever there was a chance to show a backbone this was it - he failed.
The Court of Public Opinion is worthless and should be ignored.
So in a Democracy, you are saying Public opinion is worthless?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Opinion does not result in anything, only voting matters. Opinions are like...well, they are like a piece of anatomy which every human being has *and* they both produce the same product. Voting matters. Contacting your elected representative matters. Okay, sometimes actions matter, but not as often as people would like to think--just ask anyone who was part of Occupy Wall Street whether their actions had any positive result (hint: they didn't).
I can prove that opinion is worthless a different way. What is your opinion on earthquakes? I'm not even listening because your opinion on earthquakes don't matter--they happen no matter what you think of them.
This is NOT what I said, and you know it. What I said was "innocent until proven guilty" IS our system of laws and justice.
No, that is NOT what you said.
You said "Then he is innocent of that charge."
That is NOT correct.
He has "not been found guilty."
Lots of people are guilty of all sorts of things, but may not be prosecuted because the prosecutors feel there is not enough evidence to sustain a conviction.
Although this is splitting hairs, you are technically correct--"innocent" and "not guilty" are different things. I will amend my statement to "Kavanaugh is not guilty of perjury".
As far as impeaching Kavanaugh....good luck with that.
The Court of Public Opinion is worthless and should be ignored.
So in a Democracy, you are saying Public opinion is worthless?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Opinion does not result in anything, only voting matters. Opinions are like...well, they are like a piece of anatomy which every human being has *and* they both produce the same product. Voting matters. Contacting your elected representative matters. Okay, sometimes actions matter, but not as often as people would like to think--just ask anyone who was part of Occupy Wall Street whether their actions had any positive result (hint: they didn't).
I can prove that opinion is worthless a different way. What is your opinion on earthquakes? I'm not even listening because your opinion on earthquakes don't matter--they happen no matter what you think of them.
This is NOT what I said, and you know it. What I said was "innocent until proven guilty" IS our system of laws and justice.
No, that is NOT what you said.
You said "Then he is innocent of that charge."
That is NOT correct.
He has "not been found guilty."
Lots of people are guilty of all sorts of things, but may not be prosecuted because the prosecutors feel there is not enough evidence to sustain a conviction.
Although this is splitting hairs, you are technically correct--"innocent" and "not guilty" are different things. I will amend my statement to "Kavanaugh is not guilty of perjury".
As far as impeaching Kavanaugh....good luck with that.
It'll happen.
Possibly won't be removed due to Senate but he will be exposed as the liar and partisan hack that he is. But who knows what a real investigation will turn up. Probably find out a lot more than a handicapped FBi probe. maybe he will be removed though. Maybe not before 2020 when these weak Republicans are up for election. Many will surely go down for supporting Trump and his wildly unpopular administration. Gerrymandering won't save them there because it is popular vote.
Possibly won't be removed due to Senate but he will be exposed as the liar and partisan hack that he is. But who knows what a real investigation will turn up. Probably find out a lot more than a handicapped FBi probe. maybe he will be removed though. Maybe not before 2020 when these weak Republicans are up for election. Many will surely go down for supporting Trump and his wildly unpopular administration. Gerrymandering won't save them there because it is popular vote.
What would be the pretext for ordering another FBI investigation? Wouldn't any subsequent investigation be seen as a purely partisan tactic? How far down the road of weaponizing the FBI for political purposes do we want to go? All the way back to the days of Hoover, who really did investigate his own political enemies?
As far as predicting 2020 election results, not to mention predicting 2018 election results, is concerned, I suppose that depends upon to which echo chamber you are listening. I don't listen to any of them.
Here's another angle on police killings - illustrating the problems when the police culture requiring immediate obedience comes up against disabled people who find it difficult to process commands.
Here's another angle on police killings - illustrating the problems when the police culture requiring immediate obedience comes up against disabled people who find it difficult to process commands.
I was always under the assumption that the REASON cops are given guns and other forms of possibly lethal force was because the job comes with inherent risk. And that that risk is understood by anyone taking the job. Which is why they are given so much power. But it seems that cops are trained to take absolutely NO risks whatsoever, even if it means killing innocent civilians, the mentally ill, or disabled. That is not "protecting and serving". That is protecting yourself. If you are a cop in what you think is a potentially life-threatening situation (or what they perceive as one even though it isn't), it is your JOB to put yourself in harms way before taking the life of innocent citizens. That is what you signed up for. If you can't deal with it, go do something else. No one is conscripted into this profession.
Wow, skip one day of the forums and have to read a novel to catch up!
I honestly say I have to agree with @semiticgod about the Republicans right now. For the first time ever I'm actually considering not voting for any of them in this next election. I may vote for Bill Schuette for governor only because I used to live in his district and think he's not bad. Even that is up in the air at this point, though. Disgusting...
So I have a long-term prediction about the results of Kavanaugh's inevitable confirmation today. Sometime within the next two years, a right-wing legal group will bring a case that a strict challenge to Roe v. Wade and Kavanaugh will be the vote to overturn it.
Now this isn't even a moral question I am bringing up in this scenario, but a legal one. Many people will argue that this is an issue that should be left up to individual states, which is what overturning Roe would do. Obviously MANY red states will then close their single, solitary abortion clinic. But what happens next in this scenario is the real tell.
If this occurs, I guarantee there will be women's and left-leaning groups who then organize bus rides from these red states where abortion is illegal to states where it IS legal. At the very least, there will be a network set-up to facilitate travel for those that need/want abortions and can't get them in their home state and can't afford to travel. And I also guarantee that as soon as that effort starts, the same Republican legislatures that banned abortion in the first place will immediately move to make such bus or travel planning illegal as well. At which point the decade's long legal basis for this change will fall apart at the seams. But it won't matter.
If they turn Roe over to the states and Red states deny it (even more than they do now) then that will just lead to more refugees into Blue states. Then we'll get more people living in blue states while empty red states continue voting against their best interests. They probably won't want that because their attitude is "if we can't have good things then no one can have good things." I don't mean abortion is a good thing, I mean the freedom to choose is a good thing. So I expect we'll see a nationwide ban.
I'm concerned about things like Net Neutrality. Ajit Pai and the Justice Department supported by all the broadband companies are suing california's net neutrality regulations. Gee I wonder how Bart Kavanaugh will rule on that one. So Blue States won't be able to protect themselves from Corporate fascism. I don't think people realized how little glue was holding this house of cards together.
So I have a long-term prediction about the results of Kavanaugh's inevitable confirmation today. Sometime within the next two years, a right-wing legal group will bring a case that a strict challenge to Roe v. Wade and Kavanaugh will be the vote to overturn it.
Now this isn't even a moral question I am bringing up in this scenario, but a legal one. Many people will argue that this is an issue that should be left up to individual states, which is what overturning Roe would do. Obviously MANY red states will then close their single, solitary abortion clinic. But what happens next in this scenario is the real tell.
If this occurs, I guarantee there will be women's and left-leaning groups who then organize bus rides from these red states where abortion is illegal to states where it IS legal. At the very least, there will be a network set-up to facilitate travel for those that need/want abortions and can't get them in their home state and can't afford to travel. And I also guarantee that as soon as that effort starts, the same Republican legislatures that banned abortion in the first place will immediately move to make such bus or travel planning illegal as well. At which point the decade's long legal basis for this change will fall apart at the seams. But it won't matter.
People are already getting ready for that on Facebook.
If they turn Roe over to the states and Red states deny it (even more than they do now) then that will just lead to more refugees into Blue states. Then we'll get more people living in blue states while empty red states continue voting against their best interests. They probably won't want that because their attitude is "if we can't have good things then no one can have good things." I don't mean abortion is a good thing, I mean the freedom to choose is a good thing. So I expect we'll see a nationwide ban.
I'm concerned about things like Net Neutrality. Ajit Pai and the Justice Department supported by all the broadband companies are suing california's net neutrality regulations. Gee I wonder how Bart Kavanaugh will rule on that one. So Blue States won't be able to protect themselves from Corporate fascism. I don't think people realized how little glue was holding this house of cards together.
The idea that the the Trump Administration wants to sue California for having MORE regulation over internet providers just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what horseshit this whole "state's rights" thing has been from the beginning. I can understand suing if a State wants to have LESS than a federally mandated baseline, but the idea that you would take them to court for going above and beyond is FAR more ridiculous. And it's not just the Justice Department suing them. It's the broadband companies themselves. You know, those people we were all told not to worry about when net neutrality was killed. Boy, that take has certainly held up well hasn't it?? You don't sue a state to stop a law unless you have concrete plans in place to take advantage of the ABSENCE of that law.
Again, not a "both sides" issue on the federal level. Nearly every Democrat tried to save Net Neutrality and nearly every Republican wouldn't lift a finger to save it.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Opinion does not result in anything, only voting matters. Opinions are like...well, they are like a piece of anatomy which every human being has *and* they both produce the same product. Voting matters. Contacting your elected representative matters. Okay, sometimes actions matter, but not as often as people would like to think--just ask anyone who was part of Occupy Wall Street whether their actions had any positive result (hint: they didn't).
I can prove that opinion is worthless a different way. What is your opinion on earthquakes? I'm not even listening because your opinion on earthquakes don't matter--they happen no matter what you think of them.
False equivalency to the extreme. Politics, at its core, is a combination of people's opinions and their willingness to act upon them. The stronger their opinion, the more likely they're to vote. To pretend that the correlation doesnt exist is ignoring the forest for the trees.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Opinion does not result in anything, only voting matters. Opinions are like...well, they are like a piece of anatomy which every human being has *and* they both produce the same product. Voting matters. Contacting your elected representative matters. Okay, sometimes actions matter, but not as often as people would like to think--just ask anyone who was part of Occupy Wall Street whether their actions had any positive result (hint: they didn't).
I can prove that opinion is worthless a different way. What is your opinion on earthquakes? I'm not even listening because your opinion on earthquakes don't matter--they happen no matter what you think of them.
False equivalency to the extreme. Politics, at its core, is a combination of people's opinions and their willingness to act upon them. The stronger their opinion, the more likely they're to vote. To pretend that the correlation doesnt exist is ignoring the forest for the trees.
I think what @Mathsorcerer is saying is that action is the only thing that matters. Opinion is worthless without it. I would agree with that sentiment..
It's not just that he wasn't given a hearing. It's that Orrin Hatch SPECIFICALLY said that if Obama wanted to get a judge confirmed, he would nominate someone like Merrick Garland. But then Hatch added "he won't do that". Then, true to Obama's nature (and his fundamental weakness of thinking these people were playing by some sort of rules) he went ahead and did EXACTLY that. And they told him to screw off anyway. And that is the kicker, beyond the unprecedented nature of saying to a duly-elected President "no, you don't get to make anymore picks. In fact, your PARTY no longer gets to make any picks ever". It's that Garland was no liberal firebrand. Obama could have easily picked any number of them and didn't. He was a moderate judge that members of the Republican Judiciary Committee themselves recommended.
Opinion does not result in anything, only voting matters.
False equivalency to the extreme. Politics, at its core, is a combination of people's opinions and their willingness to act upon them. The stronger their opinion, the more likely they're to vote. To pretend that the correlation doesnt exist is ignoring the forest for the trees.
Do you even read the things I post or do you simply see that I have written something and you try to find a way to reach the conclusion that I am somehow incorrect?
Opinions. Don't. Matter. The only people who think opinions matter are self-important talking heads on quasi-news shows watched only by two groups: die-hard fans who love confirmation bias and the people who strongly oppose what the talking heads are saying.
Consider those protesters outside the Supreme Court. They honestly think standing outside a building with some hand-painted sign is actually going to make a difference. The only difference it will make in the short term is when they have to pay a fine to be released from police custody should they find themselves arrested, then again in a few weeks when they go cast a vote--that is when their protest will *really* matter.
I can see it now, though--people are going to focus only on the sentence which begins "they honestly think" and will ignore everything else I said here and have been saying for a long time now. No one is interested in another person's story, only what they do with it or do about it.
At this point, the decision has been made. Kavanaugh's going to be on the bench.
But the protesters did play an important role here. Putting aside the very visible role they played on the news, Jeff Flake's decision to call for an FBI investigation almost assuredly would not have happened if those sexual assault survivors hadn't confronted him in the elevator after the hearing.
Granted, that FBI investigation might have been compromised, as we've discussed, but if it never happened in the first place, Democratic politicians might never have considered a follow-up investigation, which could have a much different outcome if it were not constrained in scope or controlled by Kavanaugh's supporters.
That, too, might not result in impeachment. But it is on the news, it does influence votes, and there's a small chance that those women in that elevator set in motion events that would alter the future of the Supreme Court--and potentially even unseat a Supreme Court justice.
There is no way he is going to be impeached. If it isn't actually impossible to get 67 votes to remove him from the bench, it is definitely functionally impossible. The Democrats would be over-performing in the EXTREME if they ever got even 55 Senators given the way the map and demographics are laid out. I have no earthly idea where the other 6 seats they would have to flip above and beyond that could possibly come from. I mean, it's a pipe dream. I wish my friends on the left on social media would quit talking about it, because I have about as much chance of getting a seat on the Supreme Court as Kavanaugh does of getting removed from it. It's time to start thinking about (as I mentioned earlier) how to subvert the inevitable annihilation of reproductive and LGBT rights that are coming as sure as I am typing this sentence. Not to mention the now wholly entrenched majority that will rule in favor of corporations nearly 100% of time. Brett Kavanaugh is going to be sitting on the bench til we are collecting Social Security. So will Neil Gorsuch. Which is exactly why the stolen seat is such a breathtaking subversion of our system of government. I said when Kennedy retired that the game was over. Despite everything, that is still the case. Mitch McConnell, even more than Trump has, shattered any sense of faith or legitimacy in this government. The entire thing is just now just an outright sham.
I have been thinking long and hard about WHY the Republicans didn't just bring Merrick Garland up for a vote and then vote him down. Because as I have mentioned, it would have at the very least inoculated them against the same argument I make over and over. Rejecting him would have been bad based on his record and qualifications, but it wouldn't have literally BROKEN our system of government. And the only conclusion I can come to is that they WANTED to bring the government to this breaking point. They wanted to do away with all pretense of good faith and the political norms that were necessary to a functioning democracy. They didn't bring him up for a vote simply because they wanted to show how much contempt they had for the way our government had functioned for hundreds of years and show that they could get away with it.
The one thing @jjstraka34 did not mention is Ginsberg. I am no fan of The Left but I am not a fan of Trump, either, so we had all better hope that her health holds out because that man does *not* need to get a third SCOTUS pick. I don't think we could survive the advice and consent process again.
Comments
I hope this is just two angry men being bitter, and not some budding GOP strategy.
I'd add that, unlike me, @semiticgod goes out of his way in most arguments to try find good faith among Republicans/conservatives. His posting and moderating history speaks to that. The fact that he has absolutely thrown up his hands over this nomination should be an indicator to everyone about how bad it is.
But yeah... my faith in the Republican party's politicians has never been so low. I've never felt less optimistic about the future of our politics.
I thought Lindsey Graham was a moderate, and I simply don't see that anymore. There are plenty of reasonable, non-partisan reasons to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination that don't require placing any level of trust, no matter how small, in Dr. Ford or any of Kavanaugh's opponents or critics. If a Democratic nominee had encountered these allegations and reacted to them the way Kavanaugh did, there's no way Senate Republicans would have accepted any excuses for his or her rage or any "maybes" about their fitness to be a justice.
Kavanaugh is getting confirmed for one reason: because he's a Republican. No other factors were relevant. We know that because no other factors played a role in his confirmation.
Precisely one Republican is going to vote "no" on Kavanaugh: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She doesn't fully believe Dr. Ford and all the allegations against Kavanaugh, and she even sympathizes with him (so she certainly doesn't share my views), but the doubt about his fitness apparently was enough to sway her vote. She deserves some credit for considering the situation from a position of principles rather than partisanship.
And that's it. For every other Republican in the Senate, every disqualifying factor about Kavanaugh only convinced them that the Democrats were scheming to make him look bad.
This entire episode has been very shocking to me. I was shocked when I heard Kavanaugh shouting, I was shocked when I heard Graham shouting, and I was shocked when I heard that Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed in spite of everything (I doubt anything will stand in the way at this point). I did not expect the bad faith behind the investigation and the hearing, or the refusal to even consider the possibility, the risk, that Kavanaugh was anything but a perfectly pure soul. And that's just...
Crushing.
I don't have another word for it. It feels like a betrayal. I never expected the Republican-controlled Senate to confirm a moderate like Merrick Garland or anything like that, but this?
I can't trust the GOP leadership to keep criminals out of the Supreme Court.
And it's crushing.
You said "Then he is innocent of that charge."
That is NOT correct.
He has "not been found guilty."
Lots of people are guilty of all sorts of things, but may not be prosecuted because the prosecutors feel there is not enough evidence to sustain a conviction.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/battle-over-accusations-goes-kavanaugh-nomination-advances-n917136
They always knew this was coming because they all knew he did it. There is no other explanation for this. There is going to be LOADS more reporting on this. And it will all pile up and pile up after he is on the Court.
Oh, and in what is the inevitable ending to this day, you know that Editorial page Kavanaugh published his defense in yesterday. Here they are, in all their glory:
Stay classy Wall Street Journal.
Republicans you won this - a rapist lying frat boy alcoholic who will sell out your rights to corporations. This is what you wanted?
By making it all or nothing win or lose, we will win and make things right. Win at any cost, right. Completely disgusting.
Americans will lose rights. Net neutrality? Gone. Abortion? Gone. Gay rights? Gone. Gerrymandering? Confirmed. Justice? Not for Trump, he's above the law he's got his ringer on the Court.
Democracy is lost because you didn't like Hillary's emails so you sold the country to a conman and your elected leaders have been revealed as corporate sellout yes-men and women.
Democrats will be forced to reshape the Supreme Court because it's completely illegitimate now.
If ever there was a chance to show a backbone this was it - he failed.
I can prove that opinion is worthless a different way. What is your opinion on earthquakes? I'm not even listening because your opinion on earthquakes don't matter--they happen no matter what you think of them. Although this is splitting hairs, you are technically correct--"innocent" and "not guilty" are different things. I will amend my statement to "Kavanaugh is not guilty of perjury".
As far as impeaching Kavanaugh....good luck with that.
Possibly won't be removed due to Senate but he will be exposed as the liar and partisan hack that he is. But who knows what a real investigation will turn up. Probably find out a lot more than a handicapped FBi probe. maybe he will be removed though. Maybe not before 2020 when these weak Republicans are up for election. Many will surely go down for supporting Trump and his wildly unpopular administration. Gerrymandering won't save them there because it is popular vote.
I honestly say I have to agree with @semiticgod about the Republicans right now. For the first time ever I'm actually considering not voting for any of them in this next election. I may vote for Bill Schuette for governor only because I used to live in his district and think he's not bad. Even that is up in the air at this point, though. Disgusting...
Now this isn't even a moral question I am bringing up in this scenario, but a legal one. Many people will argue that this is an issue that should be left up to individual states, which is what overturning Roe would do. Obviously MANY red states will then close their single, solitary abortion clinic. But what happens next in this scenario is the real tell.
If this occurs, I guarantee there will be women's and left-leaning groups who then organize bus rides from these red states where abortion is illegal to states where it IS legal. At the very least, there will be a network set-up to facilitate travel for those that need/want abortions and can't get them in their home state and can't afford to travel. And I also guarantee that as soon as that effort starts, the same Republican legislatures that banned abortion in the first place will immediately move to make such bus or travel planning illegal as well. At which point the decade's long legal basis for this change will fall apart at the seams. But it won't matter.
I'm concerned about things like Net Neutrality. Ajit Pai and the Justice Department supported by all the broadband companies are suing california's net neutrality regulations. Gee I wonder how Bart Kavanaugh will rule on that one. So Blue States won't be able to protect themselves from Corporate fascism. I don't think people realized how little glue was holding this house of cards together.
Again, not a "both sides" issue on the federal level. Nearly every Democrat tried to save Net Neutrality and nearly every Republican wouldn't lift a finger to save it.
It's not just that he wasn't given a hearing. It's that Orrin Hatch SPECIFICALLY said that if Obama wanted to get a judge confirmed, he would nominate someone like Merrick Garland. But then Hatch added "he won't do that". Then, true to Obama's nature (and his fundamental weakness of thinking these people were playing by some sort of rules) he went ahead and did EXACTLY that. And they told him to screw off anyway. And that is the kicker, beyond the unprecedented nature of saying to a duly-elected President "no, you don't get to make anymore picks. In fact, your PARTY no longer gets to make any picks ever". It's that Garland was no liberal firebrand. Obama could have easily picked any number of them and didn't. He was a moderate judge that members of the Republican Judiciary Committee themselves recommended.
Opinions. Don't. Matter. The only people who think opinions matter are self-important talking heads on quasi-news shows watched only by two groups: die-hard fans who love confirmation bias and the people who strongly oppose what the talking heads are saying.
Consider those protesters outside the Supreme Court. They honestly think standing outside a building with some hand-painted sign is actually going to make a difference. The only difference it will make in the short term is when they have to pay a fine to be released from police custody should they find themselves arrested, then again in a few weeks when they go cast a vote--that is when their protest will *really* matter.
I can see it now, though--people are going to focus only on the sentence which begins "they honestly think" and will ignore everything else I said here and have been saying for a long time now. No one is interested in another person's story, only what they do with it or do about it.
But the protesters did play an important role here. Putting aside the very visible role they played on the news, Jeff Flake's decision to call for an FBI investigation almost assuredly would not have happened if those sexual assault survivors hadn't confronted him in the elevator after the hearing.
Granted, that FBI investigation might have been compromised, as we've discussed, but if it never happened in the first place, Democratic politicians might never have considered a follow-up investigation, which could have a much different outcome if it were not constrained in scope or controlled by Kavanaugh's supporters.
That, too, might not result in impeachment. But it is on the news, it does influence votes, and there's a small chance that those women in that elevator set in motion events that would alter the future of the Supreme Court--and potentially even unseat a Supreme Court justice.
I have been thinking long and hard about WHY the Republicans didn't just bring Merrick Garland up for a vote and then vote him down. Because as I have mentioned, it would have at the very least inoculated them against the same argument I make over and over. Rejecting him would have been bad based on his record and qualifications, but it wouldn't have literally BROKEN our system of government. And the only conclusion I can come to is that they WANTED to bring the government to this breaking point. They wanted to do away with all pretense of good faith and the political norms that were necessary to a functioning democracy. They didn't bring him up for a vote simply because they wanted to show how much contempt they had for the way our government had functioned for hundreds of years and show that they could get away with it.