It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: SwissMarked
I think were doing a pretty good job of chaining ourselves, all they need to do is provide the candy and we lap it up. At least we can agree kavanaugh is not a step in the right direction for increasing our freedoms.
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: SwissMarked
I think were doing a pretty good job of chaining ourselves, all they need to do is provide the candy and we lap it up. At least we can agree kavanaugh is not a step in the right direction for increasing our freedoms.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Bone75
Like me? I don't assume anything about you or anyone else, never once have I called anyone racist or homophobic, you're free to look through my post history if you'd like.
I'm trying to figure out where you get the idea that I assume those things about anyone? Care to point me in the the general direction of where you got that from?
originally posted by: SwissMarked
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: SwissMarked
I think were doing a pretty good job of chaining ourselves, all they need to do is provide the candy and we lap it up. At least we can agree kavanaugh is not a step in the right direction for increasing our freedoms.
I don’t know where you got the idea I’m against Kavanaugh because I most certainly am not... so there’s something else we don’t agree on...
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
originally posted by: SwissMarked
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: SwissMarked
I think were doing a pretty good job of chaining ourselves, all they need to do is provide the candy and we lap it up. At least we can agree kavanaugh is not a step in the right direction for increasing our freedoms.
I don’t know where you got the idea I’m against Kavanaugh because I most certainly am not... so there’s something else we don’t agree on...
So you are fine with increased security that infringes on and erodes freedom.
Condemning a man because of the inability to remain impartial while you yourself lack that same ability is called hypocrisy.
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday that he does not support the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh “had the qualifications” to be a Supreme Court justice but his behavior at a hearing last week ― where he defended himself against allegations of sexual assault by blaming Democrats seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” ― was inappropriate and disqualifying, Stevens said.
“His performance in the hearings changed my mind,” Stevens said, the Palm Beach Post first reported. “The senators should pay attention to this.”
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Carcharadon
Was that assessment by the ABA made before or after Kavanaugh ripped off his unbiased and nonpartisan mask and exposed himself?
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday that he does not support the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh “had the qualifications” to be a Supreme Court justice but his behavior at a hearing last week ― where he defended himself against allegations of sexual assault by blaming Democrats seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” ― was inappropriate and disqualifying, Stevens said.
“His performance in the hearings changed my mind,” Stevens said, the Palm Beach Post first reported. “The senators should pay attention to this.”
www.yahoo.com...
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Agree2Disagree
Condemning a man because of the inability to remain impartial while you yourself lack that same ability is called hypocrisy.
BS!
I'm not asking Congress to elevate me to a life time position on the US Supreme Court, where my decisions will effect millions of people's lives.
Secondly, I've never done any of things Kavanaugh is accused of doing. Except, I have been black out drunk once to twice in my life, but Kavanaugh denies that he ever has.
I mean, him being upset at this obvious political smear job that lead to his reputation being ruined and his family getting death threats is unacceptable
I remember when you were calling for Ginsburg to not be allowed to be in the bench when she went off on trump
Oh that’s right you said nothing of the sort
ginsburg saying trump would ruin the country was fine
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler
I mean, him being upset at this obvious political smear job that lead to his reputation being ruined and his family getting death threats is unacceptable
One of the stranger aspects of this whole thing to me are the contortions it's taken to frame Ford's allegation as a "political smear job" without calling Ford a liar. Why is this? Some of it surely comes down simply to the optics of not wanting to be seen calling her a liar but it's more than that.
Or maybe I should ask you how strongly you came out against Alito shaking his head and saying "that's not true" during Obama's SOTU address? At best, you're basically asserting that everyone's a hypocrite.
originally posted by: Carcharadon
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: loam
Oh! Independent, impartial and humble! Sorry, too little too late.
That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe.
He told us who he was last Thursday alright. When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.
So the assessment by the ABA is meaningless to you people? Pretty much destroys the current narrative the left is peddling.
Besides he was there as a private citizen. He wasn't on trial, he wasn't sitting on the bench.
Do you advocate removing RBG for her lack of temperance when she over stepped her bounds and inserted herself into the political process by attacking Trump?
Shows a clear bias does it not?
Your fake outrage is played out.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler
One of the stranger aspects of this whole thing to me are the contortions it's taken to frame Ford's allegation as a "political smear job" without calling Ford a liar. Why is this? Some of it surely comes down simply to the optics of not wanting to be seen calling her a liar
...but it's more than that.
Ford is a successful woman — a college professor at a decent school who is also a published researcher at Stanford, whose psychology department is ranked #1 by US News, Gourman report, etc. She has a reputation of her own to worry about. Nobody sought her out. When she decided to come forward, Kavanaugh hadn't been nominated yet.
This changed in early July 2018. I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of a list of very well-qualified Supreme Court nominees. I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so that those considering his nomination would know about this assault.
On July 6th, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president as soon as possible, before a nominee was selected. I did not know how, specifically, to do this.
I called my congressional representative and let her receptionist know that someone on the president’s shortlist had attacked me. I also sent a message to the encrypted Washington Post confidential tip line. I did not use my name, but I provided the names of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. I stated that Mr. Kavanaugh had assaulted me in the 1980s in Maryland.
This was an extremely hard thing for me to do, but I felt that I couldn’t not do it.
Over the next two days, I told a couple of close friends on the beach in Aptos, California, that Mr. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted me. I was very conflicted as to whether to speak out.
Over the next two days, I told a couple of close friends on the beach in Aptos, California, that Mr. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted me. I was very conflicted as to whether to speak out.
On July 9th, I received a return phone call from the office of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo after Mr. Kavanaugh had become the nominee. I met with her staff on July 18th and with her on July 20th, describing the assault and discussing my fears about coming forward.
Later, we discussed the possibility of sending a letter to Ranking Member Feinstein, who is one of my state senators, describing what occurred. My understanding is that Representative Eshoo’s office delivered a copy of my letter to Senator Feinstein’s office on July 30th.
The letter included my name, but also a request that it be kept confidential. My hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family or anyone’s family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy that we have faced since my name became public.
She didn't seek attention, quite the contrary.
What is that you think the Republicans would have done differently if the shoe was on the other foot? Told her to piss off? No. Let's not kid ourselves. They would have considered what she said and asked her to come forward. So where does this become a "smear job?" It's never been really all that well articulated but apparently the theory, as insinuated by Kavanaugh, is that Feinstein sat on the allegation until it looked like was going to be confirmed and then leaked it to The Intercept to force Ford to come forward publicly.
How does that turn Ford's allegation into a "smear job?"
So either buck up and call the woman a liar or stop calling it a "smear job" because it's only a smear if Ford is lying.