• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Why is Brett Kavenaugh worth this fight, for Republicans?

Don't underestimate the intense desire of Trumpites to own the libs either. The fact that Kavanaugh now repulses liberals is a plus to them, not a minus. Putting another, more bland right-winger on the Court just wouldn't give them the same giddy feelings and freedom to taunt and trash-talk liberals on message boards and social media. You can already see the preliminary gloating on here. I'm sure if (when) he's confirmed later this week or early next week, we'll be overrun for awhile with lots of self-congratulation and "TRUMP RULEZ! TAKE THAT LIBRUL FUCKERS!" type of posts. It's what many of them seem to live for.

BAG GARGLE and Mange on Some MAGA, Beotch!
 
There is a lot of consternation over the Republican refusal to pull Kavenaugh's nomination and simply just nominate another candidate, hand-picked by the Heritage Foundation of course. Surely there is a plan B, probably a C & D as well. A confirmation of a female justice, Amy Coney Barrett for instance, would probably fly through the senate, and her reputation as a conservative is equal to Brett Kavenaugh's .

Neither Brett Kavenaugh's judicial experience or ideology are terribly rare. What makes him in particular so important to this Republican administration? Surely the party and the administration understand the intense opposition they are fueling among women. We're all familiar with Trump and Republicans penchant for trolling social liberals - but outright dismissing credible sexual assault accusations, for no discernable gain, is unusually foolish even for Trump's administration.

Because republicans are decent enough people to not let leftist bullies destroy a mans life based on a weak, uncorraborated, inconsistent accusation.

It might be easier just to pick someone else but it’s just not morally the right thing to do.

Personally I would be ok with picking a more conservative judge with a more literal interpretation of the 4th admenent, but I appreciate the moral highroad the right has taken on this.
 
There is a lot of consternation over the Republican refusal to pull Kavenaugh's nomination and simply just nominate another candidate, hand-picked by the Heritage Foundation of course. Surely there is a plan B, probably a C & D as well. A confirmation of a female justice, Amy Coney Barrett for instance, would probably fly through the senate, and her reputation as a conservative is equal to Brett Kavenaugh's .

Neither Brett Kavenaugh's judicial experience or ideology are terribly rare. What makes him in particular so important to this Republican administration? Surely the party and the administration understand the intense opposition they are fueling among women. We're all familiar with Trump and Republicans penchant for trolling social liberals - but outright dismissing credible sexual assault accusations, for no discernable gain, is unusually foolish even for Trump's administration.

Because this:
gettyimages-51383827-1bdd27ee832206c9aa09fac09f6ceef3554cba6e.jpg
 
Because republicans are decent enough people to not let leftist bullies destroy a mans life based on a weak, uncorraborated, inconsistent accusation.

It might be easier just to pick someone else but it’s just not morally the right thing to do.

Personally I would be ok with picking a more conservative judge with a more literal interpretation of the 4th admenent, but I appreciate the moral highroad the right has taken on this.

Thanks
 
Because republicans are decent enough people to not let leftist bullies destroy a mans life based on a weak, uncorraborated, inconsistent accusation.

It might be easier just to pick someone else but it’s just not morally the right thing to do.

Personally I would be ok with picking a more conservative judge with a more literal interpretation of the 4th admenent, but I appreciate the moral highroad the right has taken on this.

But not decent enough to give Merrick Garland so much as a hearing, apparently. Your party will soon have two men (Thomas and Kavanaugh) on the Supreme Court who have been credibly accused of sexual harassment/assault. What a proud accomplishment for the party of decency and morality!
 
In addition to presidential power and libdem pwnage, losing to the metoo movement is particularly bad for the Republicans. Plus, they might know enough rapists that they have no confidence that anyone that the nominate in his place won't also be credibly accused.
 
Yep. And it's very possible a Republican woman they nominate silenced a sexual assault victim or something like that.

This is why they feel like they need to win against #metoo. A party based on white male superiority can't thrive in a world where sexual assault victims are credible.
 
Yep. And it's very possible a Republican woman they nominate silenced a sexual assault victim or something like that.

This is why they feel like they need to win against #metoo. A party based on white male superiority can't thrive in a world where sexual assault victims are credible.
Your party just nominated a candidate for the presidency who without question did just that.
 
Your party just nominated a candidate for the presidency who without question did just that.

And that’s one reason she lost among white women and was relatively unpopular among liberal Gen X women (the Lewinsky generation).

By all means, make the same mistake Democrats made.
 
But not decent enough to give Merrick Garland so much as a hearing, apparently. Your party will soon have two men (Thomas and Kavanaugh) on the Supreme Court who have been credibly accused of sexual harassment/assault. What a proud accomplishment for the party of decency and morality!

decent enough not to assassinate Garland's character
 
If Kavanaugh fails, I'd be surprised to see them nominate a woman. That would bring the court precarious close to a female majority, which I can't imagine your average Republican is all that comfortable with.
 
If the Kavanaugh nomination fails narrowly, Trump may try to use disgust with the Dems tactics to strengthen the Pubs' position in the senate in the fall elections, and then, if successful, renominate BK.
 
But not decent enough to give Merrick Garland so much as a hearing, apparently. Your party will soon have two men (Thomas and Kavanaugh) on the Supreme Court who have been credibly accused of sexual harassment/assault. What a proud accomplishment for the party of decency and morality!

You are just too ignorant to argue with. First, you won’t admit the hubris of Harry Reid. He gambled and lost.

2nd, that seat is the Conservative Scalia seat.

This is the Kennedy seat. This is the swing seat and Trump nominated Kavanaugh on the heels of a 3 hour meeting with Kennedy. Let Lindsey Graham explain it to you. He did a masterful job explaining the stakes.
 
Your party just nominated a candidate for the presidency who without question did just that.
This is perfect illustration of the right's disingenuousness. If Catamount actually gave a crap about this he would be totally outraged by Donald Trump's history much more so than Hillary Clinton protecting her husband.
 
decent enough not to assassinate Garland's character

Not that Kavanaugh needs much effort to "assassinate" his character (LOL), but the GOP didn't even need to try with Garland, as they wouldn't give him the decency of a hearing. No need to attack someone when you won't even let them have a hearing in the first place.
 
If the Kavanaugh nomination fails narrowly, Trump may try to use disgust with the Dems tactics to strengthen the Pubs' position in the senate in the fall elections, and then, if successful, renominate BK.

First part, certainly. Second...seems unlikely, but it is Trump we’re talking about, so...?
 
Not that Kavanaugh needs much effort to "assassinate" his character (LOL), but the GOP didn't even need to try with Garland, as they wouldn't give him the decency of a hearing. No need to attack someone when you won't even let them have a hearing in the first place.



That’s obvious.

Pubs won’t grasp.
 
Back
Top