the specific accuser you are mentioning is not the one who put for the accusation of ‘gang rapes of adults led by an underaged teenager’. this was introduced during the hearings later on by outside sources ie: tabloids.

kavanaugh thus far has not shown any partiality during his time on the SC bench. anyone saying that he might not be impartial during the hearings was putting forth the ridiculous notion to try and force him to prove a negative.

If someone raped me 20 years ago, and then I saw them being appointed to the highest court in the land I would probably feel a moral obligation to say something. Any anonymous or similar such accusations outside of that though are pretty silly and shouldn't be involved in the process, as like you implied it turns the whole process into a circus.

There is no shame in holding that as a value, as its something I would do myself in Ford's position.

What I don't understand is with such an important position, why couldn't they just appoint a different person? Why did it have to be this one guy in particular? There are plenty of other conservative-minded judges available. Thats what is so odd to me. I would just hire someone else who has the values I was looking for in the position.

It makes it feel like the judge is bought and paid for, which is why they need this specific guy. That is just baseless conjecture on my part though.

This post was edited by Mangix on Oct 12 2020 11:42am

if u withdraw the nomination people will take it as proof the rape occurred.

it's sad, but a simple "ok u didnt like that guy, np how about this person" is perceived as so much more. i agree, if shit comes up just nominate someone else.

Because modern conservatives aren't interested in policy or consistency. They're interested in making liberals angry.

This isn't a game of dodgeball where you can just choose the next guy up. The stakes are high and when you vet all these people you end up with like 4-5 candidates that are fit for the job.

Problem is it doesn't matter who the nomination would of been they would have received the same type of bullshit scrutiny. I guarantee Barrett will have some things hurdled at her which we're going to be asking like are you really asking that type of dumb shit?

I mean we've already seen in it with deranged leftists questioning her adoption of some black kids from sure poverty.

Why the fuck would anyone give an inch to such tactics? Fuck nominating someone else if the 'critics' are stooping to these levels.

yeah withdrawing the nominee would have shown a semblance of that kavanaugh was ‘guilty’ without proving it. probably best we dont have that sort of wishy-washy standard applied across the board, cuz it will end up being ‘they said vs they said’ every single time. the senate had a hearing and the accuser could not get any one of her alleged witnesses to verify the claims.

some in the media/lefties have actually argued that ACB’s family adopting two girls from Haiti is ‘a nefarious plot and disqualifes her’. do we really need to slow down everything for people who hold such notions and feed it to senators that will be voting on the nominees?

if ACB was nominated in place of Kavanagh it would have been way less messy.

Thats a fair take. Though people were already claiming from both sides that it did happen, or didn't happen, regardless of any amount of evidence or discussion proving otherwise. So it doesn't seem like it would make a huge difference and I'll admit I'm not very worried about a millionaire/boderline millionaire's life being disturbed.



Because we want the best people for the job. Is there a chain of them appointing possible rapists (by this I mean a chain of ppl accused by the opposition party of rape), or was it just this one person accused of it? If so I haven't heard of it.

This post was edited by Mangix on Oct 12 2020 12:03pm

if, republican nominated = bad

And you say i make vague one liners that dont contribute ..... lmao