The Soapbox

Hoos Operator

Joined: 11/11/2005 Posts: 8891
Likes: 15149


What kind of scumbag defends this process?


“What rules were "flouted" (and how) and what on earth are you talking about with "punitive measures"? Again, nonsense. “


Booker explicitly stated that he was willing to get expelled from the Senate by releasing ­emails the committee had deemed classified (and did so allegedly without knowledge that those emails had been declassified a few hours earlier). Most rational, objective people would consider that flouting the rules of the Senate. Then again, maybe you stood up and announced “I am Spartacus” too when he tried to pull off that stunt. He should be removed from the Judicial Committee and every Senator who supported flouting the Senate rules should be censured.

“You're wrong on the numbers, and you clearly don't know the history behind those nominations. For starters, maybe check out who recommended Ginsburg to Bill Clinton and why. Hint: he was a Republican and it was because she was viewed as a moderate that Republicans would be fine with.”

The votes were Ginsburg 96-3 and Scalia 98-0. What’s the difference? The point is these candidates were overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate. Even the recent confirmation hearings of leftists Kagan (63-37) and Sotomayor (68-31) were fairer and less political. If their hearings were conducted like Kavanaugh’s you would would been screeching about them and insulting other posters as usual.


“No he doesn't and we don't know that this accusation is ‘baseless.’ Nor is it ‘obscure’ (do you even know what that word means?). In fact, so far it seems pretty credible and certainly worthy of vetting. What you posted is just stupid and completely ignorant of the process, what purpose it serves, and how it works. He doesn't have any ‘rights’ here. He could be voted down because 51 Senators think we've got enough Irish Catholics on the court if they felt like it. May not be cool and may even be bigotry that backfires politically, but within the Senate's discretion. You clearly know nothing if you think he has some kind of right to a vote without a sexual assault accuser being heard.”

Yes, he most certainly does have the right to fight personal, spurious, venomous attacks like the one currently being staged against him. Just because he is being considered for a seat on the highest court in the land doesn’t mean he relinquished his right to be treated with respect and decency (a concept which may well be foreign to you). This Jackie Coakley-esque claim attacking his character and publicly exposing himself, his wife and his daughters to an unproven, vague accusation is yet one more shameful, desperate act committed by your party.

“LOL, more histrionic bitch rant from HO Cakes. Yeah, I"m sure women showing up to vote in November midterms are just APPALLED!!! at how unfairly this kind and decent man has been treated about his alleged rape attempt.”

Since you failed to learn your lesson in 2016, you will learn again not all women feel that all unfounded, unprovable accusations of sexual assault against men are valid claims. They know, as we experienced at UVA, that there are many reasons why false accusations occur. After witnessing the histrionics that took place in the hearings by Democrat Senators and staged spectators, it’s not hard to see the motivation behind this one.

[Post edited by Hoos Operator at 09/19/2018 1:26PM]

(In response to this post by WahooRQ)

Posted: 09/19/2018 at 12:49PM



+0

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:


Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:


Current Thread:
  A play in one act -- Fuzzy Dunlop 09/19/2018 10:50AM
  "Much Ado About Nothing"? ** -- Tuckahokie 09/19/2018 10:52AM
  2 to 10% of accusations are fake -- WahooMatt05 09/19/2018 10:12AM
  Stealing someone else's response -- WahooMatt05 09/19/2018 09:56AM
  Opps. I thought SC wrote the response. ** -- Shenhoo 09/19/2018 09:40AM
  I'm glad I'm not a lawyer ** -- BocaHoo91 09/19/2018 09:47AM
  You’re not smart enough.... -- WahooRQ 09/19/2018 09:56AM
  Too ethical :>O ** -- Tuckahokie 09/19/2018 10:02AM
  That's definitely NOT it... ** -- BocaHoo91 09/19/2018 10:22AM
  For more than one reason ; ) ** -- Cold Hoober Hoo 09/19/2018 09:55AM
  See Matthew Dowd of ABC News -- TpkeHoo 09/19/2018 09:01AM
  Ok. But what about the hundreds that don't? -- hoolstoptheheels 09/19/2018 09:47AM
  We certainly agree about our opposition to the sentiment. ** -- hoolstoptheheels 09/19/2018 12:57PM
  Ok. I agree, that's just stupid. -- hoolstoptheheels 09/19/2018 09:12AM
  This could be one of the examples -- Hoodafan 09/19/2018 08:48AM
  Is that a "normative discussion?" Those are tweets. -- hoolstoptheheels 09/19/2018 09:07AM
  He has no right? Have her allegations been proven true. ** -- Cold Hoober Hoo 09/19/2018 08:22AM
  Thought about you while I was watching the NewsHour yesterday. -- hoolstoptheheels 09/19/2018 08:39AM
  The whole thing is a stall tactic, which bothers me. -- hoolstoptheheels 09/19/2018 09:37AM
  To your first point, revenge. ** -- Cold Hoober Hoo 09/19/2018 07:30AM
  Did I say that was the case with Kav? I was making a general -- Cold Hoober Hoo 09/19/2018 09:06AM
  Or justice ** -- 111Balz 09/19/2018 07:38AM
  Yep. You can’t get behind that. ** -- Hokieesith 09/19/2018 12:00AM

Notice: Trying to get property 'queue' of non-object in /data/www/sportswar.com/wp-includes/script-loader.php on line 2781

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /data/www/sportswar.com/wp-includes/script-loader.php on line 2781
vm307