thegreekdog wrote:You keep pretending that the Gorusch and Kavanaugh nominations are the same. You should stop doing that. They aren't the same. To understand how different they are you simply need to look at the hearings and the media coverage of the hearings BEFORE the accuser stepped forward. Democrats and the media were very critical of the Kavanaugh nomination well in advance of any sexual misconduct allegations; I suspect it was only because he would replace the swing vote on the Court. They were not critical of the Gorusch nomination. In fact, I remember virtually none of the Gorusch confirmation process.
So either you think they are the same, in which case you're dumb (which you're not) or you're pretending they're the same in which case you're being intellectually dishonest where there is no need to do so (which I don't think you care about).
So, I haven't really addressed this because I'm mostly just enjoying nailing down the unrepentant misogynists in this thread. But you really seem to want to talk about it, and it's a pretty good illustration of your failures to understand any position to the left of you despite your projected image of pride in even-handed discourse. Here you go.
I agree, the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations were very different circumstances. Now, I'm not sure exactly what media you've used to follow these nominations, but, from a purely political perspective, the view from not just the left, but centrist Dems too, is that the Gorsuch seat is a stolen seat. Not in the sense that anything illegal occurred, just in the sense that the oh so precious "political norms" were violated. The Garland nomination was an opportunity to roll back, or at least pause, a 60 or so year effort by the right to pack the court with ultra-conservative justices. It was an opportunity to soften a seat held by an absolute ogre like Scalia into a relatively harmless centrist position. I know you think Gorsuch will be a model of judicial restraint, but Gorsuch represents another point on the line allowing the Supreme Court to roll back decades of judicial progress, and noting he is better than Scalia is a joke of a bar to clear. So, politically speaking, that seat is not a write-off because it replaced a conservative with a conservative. That's a myopic and, frankly, stupid view.
Now, there's a real gem in your discussion of Gorsuch's nomination. You don't remember anything about it politically or in the media, therefore it must have been uneventful. What the f*ck are you reading Greek? The Dems filibustered him, the Reps did the "nuke", and real fucking shitheads like Manchin and Heitkamp helped confirm him. I think he was out of committee in less than a week, but the full senate was a clusterfuck.
Kavanaugh represents the last ditch opportunity to obstruct the probably foregone result of a fully reactionary Supreme Court, so there is definitely a sense of desperation there, though it is a hole Democrats themselves helped dig. Your confidence in the maintenance of Roe v Wade notwithstanding, there are plenty of other precedents the conservatives would love to overturn, and they will continue ruining labor, voting rights, and other protections. And I have no doubt Roe will eventually turn up on the HUD. So you frame Kavanaugh as simply replacing a swing vote with a reliably conservative vote as if, politically, that's not the worst case scenario in that situation for the liberals. They are well in their wheelhouse to be upset about that.
So, with that political background restated we can address the two nominations with fairly clear eyes. We have the "stolen seat" and the last bastion of a vaguely centrist court to compare. The stakes are high in both situations, though driven by different political forces. Both of these situations are an opportunity to use any political means necessary to completely sandbag the nominee, and the Dems have done that to a degree, but your political spectacles need to be pretty warped to view this as only a red to red and a swing to red whinefest. There's a history to this discussion, and if you can't remember a year and a half ago, I don't really know what to tell you Greek.
With this renewed vision of these nominees, we can continue to discuss how assault allegations filter through it. You know, the topic of conversation before you forced surface level politics into it. If women are truly the vindictive, conniving, and manipulative beasts that they supposedly are, why did none of them cash in that big Soros paycheck and accuse Gorsuch of assault during the "stolen seat" circus? Why is it only Kavanaugh who is looking like a bigger and bigger scumbag with every passing day? The vengeance aspect to Gorsuch seems like it would be irresistible to the cold-hearted harpies we know as "women."
Which of you dumbshits is going to be the first to claw "TIMING" at your crumb-encrusted keyboards?
