But then that’d be admitting fault—and admitting fault means losing—and losing mean not winning!—and not winning means political death.
All ten Judiciary Committee Democrats sent a letter to the orange with the same message. Just the perjury alone would have sunk Clinton's nominee.
But Trump said people would be tired of winning by now.
Just being a Clinton nominee would've sunk Clinton's nominee. If Hillary had won the election, we've have two vacant court seats by now.
If Kennedy even retired, which I doubt he would have.
na they had garland scheduled for a hearing in november but cut that just as quietly when trump won.
I seriously hope mcconnell gets hit by a bus or something though because he's the embodiement of everything wrong with this country, and he's never had anything remotely like a serious challenge for his seat either.
Withdrawing isn't a good thing for anyone. We shouldn't be asking for it.
We are setting the prescedent that all it needs is it accuse someone of something to prevent them getting a position, regardless if they are later found innocent.
Not a great way to go to allow making a habit of that kind of behavior. Reminds me of the Alex Salmond allegation where he withdrew to deal with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFoi3k-Z8IU
If he does get appointed that does mean we're setting the precedent that it's okay to appoint conspiracy theorists to the supreme court.
They're planning on putting someone who has had multiple accusations of sexual with stories that have been corroborated by several of his old classmates and even his old roommate and friends into a position where he will be deciding womens reproductive rights among several other womens rights. You don't see a red flag there?
We already have a conspiracy theorist president who appeared on the show of a conspiracy theorist and promulgated a conspiracy about the previous president.
Of course. So let the investigation do it's thing and justice should prevail and not only will he not get the position he may get a jail sentence.
The wider issue of opposing parties getting rid of candidates with baseless accusations would be a problem for the future if people are aware that people will resign everytime it happens.
The republicans have stated they will force him in regardless of if there's an active investigation. He's getting the position if he doesn't resign.
That's a separate issue of the Republican party rejecting court findings and forcing through candidates. The party were in their rights to withdraw their support for the candidate, nothing can stop that as it's their own pick.
I'm just saying be careful with the precedents you set, Washington and politics in general is petty as fuck and they absolutely will use avenues to further their own goals if you make it justified and reliable to do so. If justice isn't being upheld then I would say focus on that rather than forcing people to resign before a court finds them guilty after being suspected for a crime.
Politicians withdraw due to mere allegations of sexual harassment or assault all the time, this would hardly be setting a precedent.
Forcing them out would. Parties have the right not to be associated and have people leave. But have the wider government having the power to force people out is not a good idea, in my opinion. It shouldn't be a mandatory consequence by law until proceedings finalize.
It's not a "mandatory consequence by law" though, the Senate Democratic leader is requesting Trump withdraw his nomination or direct an investigation. The claims against Kavanaugh are more than credible to warrant such stance.
Except it won't prevail if we don't intervene. Kavanaugh is, himself, a perversion of justice, and the GOP wants to install him on the highest court in the country where he can proceed to skullfuck justice for the next 30-40 years. Normally I'd agree with the idea of letting the court of law handle it, but this is a situation where the courts themselves are at risk and letting them handle it will accomplish nothing. We're backed into a corner and it's either we use this to protect the integrity of the court system(Or at least what's left of same), or we sit back, we 'let the courts handle it', and watch Lady Justice take a 9mm to the brainpan.
Can't argue with that at all.
If your court is not upholding justice, it's a bigger issue than the one man. If what he did is true then he should be serving some sort of sentence, not getting a job or only at risk of losing one. The anger should be focused at the proper places.
I won't downplay how shit it would be for you guys if this guy gets in.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
