(10-06-2018 07:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Frizz:

I am not going to mock the subject matter. Nor am I going to say the *only* thing is a nominee's qualifications.

As for the initial subject matter re: Ford, if there was anywhere near any sort of corroboration I would have to say that Kavanaugh should not be on the Court, notwithstanding his stellar qualifications for it.

And, had it been shown that Kavanaugh lied to either the investigators *or* the Senate, he should not only be not considered, but probably removed from the current appellate posting.

That is the fun we get ourselves into by opening up the can of worms that fell out of it. The assault charges *made* the binge drinking / nasty drunk whatnot thread relevant.

What was lost in the rain of crap was that there was ZERO corroboration for the initial issue. *That* is the serious issue I have -- *that* is the precursor to the shower of crap.

Someone with a 'D' by their name should be fing charged with 'something' for the leak. But that is my la-la land view of it, I guess.

Good for the Democrats for putting the illusion of 'qualified but I dont agree' into the grave. They did a fantastic job of shivving that one in the spine in this go around. But, at least there is *no* illusion as to the normal matter of course that these will be from here on out, instead of the Lucy/football/Charlie Brown charade of the last 30 years. I'm not happy about it, but it is simple now.

This. I am closer to Frizzy's position, but I recognize that not all (perhaps not many) agree with me....

but even if they don't, the fact that this has become a purity test is beyond ridiculous, especially in that a few of the most important tenants we expect this person to uphold are the presumption of innocence, due process, timely trials, statutes of limitations, rules of evidence etc etc etc

If the woman was assaulted by ANYONE, then I have compassion for her. If HE was the one, then it's beyond sad, but this is why we insist on speedy trials.