Kavanaugh hearing

[Brian Peacock]

anti-abortion sentiment is motivated by religion and irrational emotion.

So what you say about them is more accurate than what they say about themselves?

I have heard arguments based on other things, but you would likely just say they were really motivated by something other than what they said.

They certainly say that their stance is motivated by religion, so that's not me ascribing something false about them. As far as "irrational emotion" goes, it is fairly telling that their posters etc. always have pictures of darling little babies to tug at the heart strings, rather than the reality, which is something like a large tadpole...

When does the life become 'human' to you? Viability?

To me, it is human life from egg or sperm. Doesn't change my stance.

To some, there is an economic argument about abortion. I don't understand their arguments as well as I might, but to dismiss them as religious would deny me the ability to learn any different.

To others, there is some racism shown in abortion rates in certain impoverished communities. Is that racism concern just them pretending their motive isn't religious?

If so, I can simply dismiss all your arguments as religious, and we get nowhere.

Do you think there's an element of what's often called bodily autonomy as well - an idea that says we each own ourselves and thus have a right to make decisions about our bodies and what we do with them?

If so, how might we resolve the conflict of bodily rights that could arises between mothers and their yet to be born offspring?

[Cunt]

If so, I can simply dismiss all your arguments as religious, and we get nowhere.

Do you think there's an element of what's often called bodily autonomy as well - an idea that says we each own ourselves and thus have a right to make decisions about our bodies and what we do with them?

If so, how might we resolve the conflict of bodily rights that could arises between mothers and their yet to be born offspring?

For me it's simple. Everyone has the right to evict anyone from their body, for any or no reason, at any time.

It's fucking harsh, but clear.

I know many try to be more nuanced, but I think it is a muddying of the waters which doesn't help at all.

[Cunt]

If so, I can simply dismiss all your arguments as religious, and we get nowhere.

Do you think there's an element of what's often called bodily autonomy as well - an idea that says we each own ourselves and thus have a right to make decisions about our bodies and what we do with them?

If so, how might we resolve the conflict of bodily rights that could arises between mothers and their yet to be born offspring?

For me it's simple. Everyone has the right to evict anyone from their body, for any or no reason, at any time.

It's fucking harsh, but clear.

I know many try to be more nuanced, but I think it is a muddying of the waters which doesn't help at all.

[pErvinalia]

Evil? What? Have you been drinking the kool-aid?

There's nothing evil about preventing the murder of a human being.

Wha...?

At what point do you think the baby needs must be carried to term rEv?

The usual cut off is something like 26 weeks, I think. Sounds reasonable. Do you think it's murder aborting a foetus younger than that? At what age (if one) does it stop being murder?

[Jason]

I was thinking about 6 weeks, but now that I'm doing some reading I'm not sure it shouldn't be earlier.

[pErvinalia]

Siva the conservative. Did you suffer a bump on the head in the last day or so?

[Jason]

Gaslighting again. Fantastic.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Been busy and not visiting this site, but after reading the entirety this thread since my last post, I'll proceed.

I had no criticism of the Garland nomination, because the Senate at that time followed the Senate's practice in that regard. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html "Scalia’s death led to only the third Supreme Court nomination in a presidential election year since World War II, and all three vacancies were filled by the winner. (William Brennan’s recess appointment by Dwight Eisenhower was only confirmed after Ike was reelected in a landslide.)" Merrick Garland was treated no differently.

"Before World War II, the Senate refused to let Presidents Rutherford B. Hayes, James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler and John Quincy Adams fill a vacancy during a presidential election year. A hostile Congress did worse to Andrew Johnson after the Civil War; he was stripped of his nominating power."

Not surprisingly, you're citing a right-wing pundit who's not above disingenuous presentation to support his agenda.

It appears that McLaughlin is deliberately equivocating about the time-frame. The presidents mentioned here all served in the 19th century--they weren't just 'before World War II'--they were all in office well before the turn of the last century. McLaughlin is citing 'precedent' from well over 130 years ago; the reason he's doing so is that aside from Republicans blocking Garland there is no more recent example of this happening. Political machinations from the 19th century that haven't been revisited since aren't particularly relevant, nor are they a legitimate justification for McConnell's craven skulduggery.

McLaughlin then cites an example of a Democratic president's nominee being confirmed by a Republican Senate in an election year. This occurred more recently than any of his 'before World War II' instances, but he makes sure to note that the year was 1888. In that year the president nominated a judge who was 'acceptable to Republicans.' McLaughlin pointedly fails to mention fact that Republican Senator Orrin Hatch put forward the name of Merrick Garland as an acceptable moderate before Obama nominated him, having previously described Garland as a 'consensus nominee' who would 'no question' be confirmed. Hatch changed his position (undeniably for political reasons) once the nomination actually took place. Nor was Hatch the only Republican Senator to praise Garland as a respected jurist with a solidly moderate record. McLaughlin's article presents a skewed and selective approach to the history of Supreme Court nominations. His supposed 'precedent' is created by skipping over the 20th century entirely and ignoring the clear parallel between Garland's nomination and that of 1888.

If the US Senate had ignored Blasey Ford's allegations once they became public they would have been neglecting their constitutional duty. In refusing to even give Garland a hearing, the Republicans were debasing the constitutional function of the US Senate for political reasons. McLaughlin's lame reference to a 'precedent' that was dead for over a century doesn't change this fact.

Despite your insistence, your opinion of Blasey Ford's credibility remains irrelevant. In my opinion there are good reasons to believe that she's telling the truth about Kavanaugh's actions. For one, it's clear that she didn't just create the story out of whole cloth merely to besmirch his character; we know she privately told people about it long before he was being considered for the US Supreme Court. If Trump had not nominated him, none of us would have ever have learned about this. My opinion has just as much relevance as yours--none.

What evidence do you have that 'the Democrats' are responsible for releasing the information about Blasey Ford?

Regarding your assertion that Leland Keyser said that she had 'never met' Kavanaugh, can you cite this quote? As far as I'm aware what she said is that she doesn't know Kavanaugh.

Noting that you've failed to produce any links to these 'new polls,' I'll ask: Do you think the US Senate should conduct itself according to the results of popularity polls?

It's the Rasmussen polls, I believe.

I think most of the time the US Senate should take public opinion into consideration (but not the only consideration), after all, the election of Senators was changed to popular voting 100 years ago for that very reason, that they should correspond to the will of the people. But, in general, they should also be mindful not to cave in to the mob - and if the people are rioting and going batshit over something, that rise in anger, offense or upset - the vicissitudes of emotional drama, etc. - should not be taken into account. That's why we have a representative democracy, and not direct voting on appointees - they're supposed to act with cooler heads. Senators should be careful not to be swayed by hysteria.

Fox News's favorite pollster. OK, whatever.

Your 'cooler heads' ideal is ironic given Kavanaugh's very public hours-long partisan tantrum.

The US Senate was intended to be the more statesmanlike house of Congress--to be more circumspect and deliberative than the House of Representatives. I think it negates its very reason for existence if it's to be swayed by polls that supposedly convey the transient whims of the populace.

Leland [Keyser] has no recollection of it, and flat out said she never met Kavanaugh, ever.

Again, where did she 'flat out' that she 'never met Kavanaugh, ever'?

... Democrats, when they had control of the Senate, got rid of the filibuster of SCOTUS nominees.

As Joe pointed out, it wasn't the Democrats who changed the rule as it relates to Supreme Court nominations. The move to invoke the so-called nuclear option was a response to Republican intransigence in blocking Obama's judicial nominations for lower courts, and specifically excluded Supreme Court nominations.

[Hermit]

Wonderful non-answer Coito. I get that there's a 'spectrum,' 'gradient,' or range, of development in play in these considerations, but where do you place the limits, or outer bounds?

There are none. Not objective ones, that is. The limits are socially determined, vary in time and place, and stretch beyond your expectations. Look up infanticide.

[Animavore]

[Hermit]

You can read how 42 considers this use of "evil" a vile slight against alt right thinking people

Of course he would. He feels personally targeted because he's one of them. Deep down inside he knows it too well despite his repeated public protestations.

[JimC]

We have our very own Axis of Evil right here at Ratz!

42 - Cunt - mistermack

[pErvinalia]

[JimC]

Very, very apt...

[Animavore]

Of course Nazis love Kavanaugh.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/201 ... ason-women