No, I actually think that's true. I don't think they would have dropped the cloture requirement from 60 on a nominee where they would have had a pretty damn big fight to get to 50.
Testimonial evidence is evidence. Circumstantial and testimonial evidence, including his own yearbook and buddies book, is also evdiencet he was quite the party animal, which he also similarly denied. The latter calls into question his first denial and his truthfulness about his youth. Like so many before you on this thread, no. Ford's testimony was not "disputed by the other 4 people who were allegedly at the party." They don't corroborate her account nor to they exonerate Kavanaugh. The witnesses not named Kavanaugh or Jduge either don't remember the party or don't remember the incident, both of which are reasonable in light of the only the others in the room that Ford testified about are two who deny it--the others were not in the room so it would be reasonable to not remember an incident they did not know about at a party that they can easily forget.
When has Mitch McConnell shown any sort of principles? If Mitch can get his 50 votes, he's nuking the filibuster. And which person in the Republican Party is going to stop that?
Interpreting witness statements and proving or disproving whether the elements of a crime have been met is first and foremost an exercise in hair splitting. Language matters more than anything in a statement (not what you WANT it to mean, but what it ACTUALLY says within the context in which it was said) and the plain meaning of what they said is that they don’t remember the party, not that it didn’t happen or that it happened and they weren’t there. Just like the gazillion posts on here about the other women saying she saw Kav and JudGe gang raping women at 10 parties, when she really said she was at 10 parties with them. And I would feel the same about language usage whether the nominee was Karl Marx or Atilla the Hun.
Harry did for the lower courts when the GOP was obstructing Obama's nominees. McConnell did for the SCOTUS.
No, it's not splitting hairs. It goes directly to properly distinguishing language and what two different ideas communicate. You can't claim someone "disputes" another persons account when their claim is that they don't remember. The former and latter convey two different notions.
For all but SC nominees. McConnell finished the job. Nuclear option: Why Trump's Supreme Court pick needs only 51 votes
I sat with a group of friends that don't like Trump last night. They were disgusted with the way the Dems handled the Kavanaugh deal. The way the gems handled it will backfire. I also live in a neighborhood that only had a few Gillum signs. You guys like signs. There are no Trump signs. The Trump voters are not answering calls for the polls. They are not putting signs in their yards, but they are getting out to vote. We will see in November.
Same people who are holding this nomination up. GOP can exert significantly more pressure on them to simply confirm the nominee than they would have been able to to (1) first reinterpret the Senate rules to enable them to close debate on the nominee, (2) then to actually close debate on the nominee, and (3) then to confirm. If you had the filibuster in place right now, I suspect you would see Flake making his whining appeal to the collegiality of the Senate and the need to pick a nominee who is not so widely objected to by his colleagues rather than whining about how difficult it is to make up his mind in this situation.
Harry eliminated the filibuster for lower court nominees (District and Circuit Courts of Appeal), but kept it for Supreme Court nominees, Mitch eliminated it completely when Gorsuch was nominated.
It’s amazing how people always seem to have friends or friends of friends who have a similar world view.
Ben, it's not any different. It's not like the Senators suddenly decided that the rules were wrong. It was a partisan move. They would have had the same pressure on them. They need 50 votes. They would have been pressuring the same people to vote Kavanaugh and nuke the filibuster. It just would have added a small procedural hurdle. With how unpopular Kavanaugh is, there's no chance that they're not nuking the filibuster in the alternate reality if they choose to confirm him in this reality.
Anyone see the Fox News contributor fires this afternoon for calling the women “lying skanks”? Kevin Jackson.
You've got more faith in whiny spineless Republicans actually doing what Republican voters want them to than literally any Republican I know.
All three witnesses can’t remember the party? All three? Out of 6 total people? With her leaving early by running out the front door leaving her girl friend behind? Not one has any recollection of the party. The likelyhood of that is so remote that it is pitiful that this is what you are hanging your hat on to prove that her story is true, a written statement designed to avoid any chance of perjury charges occurring over an event 35 years ago. Basically a legalized way of saying we have no idea what party she is talking about, but we want to cover our butts to be sure we can’t be charged if our memories were fuzzy. The girl friend even stated she doesn’t remember ever being at a party with Kavanaugh. The fact that none of them have said that they 100% don’t remember the party is a plus for Ford’s story? You are misrepresenting the statement of those three witnesses more than Kavanaugh ever did. Acting like their statement backs up Ford’s story instead of Kavanaughs is the biggest joke ever. For example, I allege that you stole my wallet. I get statements from three people who were there with me, including my wife, to back up my story. However, all three statements say that they don’t remember seeing you anywhere near me that day, but can’t be sure, and my wife says that she doesn’t remember ever seeing you with me. Those three statements were the only evidence I had to back up my story that you stole my wallet. If you said those statements proved that you were innocent, would you be wrong? You may be literally wrong, but from the viewpoint of my evidence against you, you are absolutely correct. Those statements do more to prove that you didn’t steal my wallet than they do to prove that you did steal my wallet.
It is impressive. I've seen a bunch of conservatives on here and Twitter claiming that their NeverTrumper friends are so disgusted that they're going to turn out and vote. Yet, the data doesn't show this happening. The one area where Republicans might gain ground is the data showing that the fight right now has Republicans more focused on politics than they were in the preceding months. However, if the data showed anything, it was that the handling of this by Republicans was hurting them with women and independents. Now, we'll see how the Republicans handle it from here. They might be able to save themselves, but you're drinking some serious Kool-Aid if you think this fight is causing more people to join Team Republican than Team Democrat. The main benefit is getting complacent Republicans fired up, but we'll see if that lasts.
