Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)
Comments
-
What is the risk to the GOP of dropping Kavanagh? Is it purely due to the upcoming midterms and the (unlikely) risk of loosing the senate?
As John Oliver pointed out, there is nothing unique about Kavanagh's qualifications. If they turn around and say they are uncomfortable with his testimony and drop his nomination and start the process again with another republican judge who still matches their political ideology, surely that would win them some points.
And I know Kavanagh has made come claims about the scope of presidential power that make him attractive (or pleasing
) to the Trump administration, but surely he isn't the only judge who thinks this way.
My point is, I don't see why the GOP are putting all their eggs in Kavanagh's basket when viable alternatives exist for them.0 -
-
SimonTemplar wrote: »What is the risk to the GOP of dropping Kavanagh? Is it purely due to the upcoming midterms and the (unlikely) risk of loosing the senate?
As John Oliver pointed out, there is nothing unique about Kavanagh's qualifications. If they turn around and say they are uncomfortable with his testimony and drop his nomination and start the process again with another republican judge who still matches their political ideology, surely that would win them some points.
And I know Kavanagh has made come claims about the scope of presidential power that make him attractive (or pleasing) to the Trump administration, but surely he isn't the only judge who thinks this way.
My point is, I don't see why the GOP are putting all their eggs in Kavanagh's basket when viable alternatives exist for them.
1) It was Trump's choice for him to go forward as the nomination (for reasons suspected as listed above)
2) Trump does not like backing down
If it becomes apparent Kavanaugh will fail to get the votes, it won't go to the floor and Trump will call it a witch hunt and move on.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
SimonTemplar wrote: »What is the risk to the GOP of dropping Kavanagh? Is it purely due to the upcoming midterms and the (unlikely) risk of loosing the senate?
As John Oliver pointed out, there is nothing unique about Kavanagh's qualifications. If they turn around and say they are uncomfortable with his testimony and drop his nomination and start the process again with another republican judge who still matches their political ideology, surely that would win them some points.
And I know Kavanagh has made come claims about the scope of presidential power that make him attractive (or pleasing) to the Trump administration, but surely he isn't the only judge who thinks this way.
My point is, I don't see why the GOP are putting all their eggs in Kavanagh's basket when viable alternatives exist for them.
Sunk cost at this stage. They've put so much effort, and at likely political expense to themselves and their party, with trying to push Kavanaugh through as quickly as possible even before the accusations came out that they can't pull out of it now. He was Trump's pick, they know he leans their way on some of the big issues that might come before the Supreme Court in the next few years (not just the possibility of whether a President can be indicted etc, but also gun rights, Medicare, and anti-abortion groups may take the chance seeing how the court is more Conservative-leaning to try bring a case regarding Roe V Wade). There are other Judges who may fit the bill for all those items, but at this stage, they've simply invested too much time and political capital on Kavanaugh.
If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed by the midterms for whatever reason, the GOP may cut their losses with him and put someone else through if they still retain enough seats to do so, or if they lose seats, they may try force Kavanaugh through regardless before January while they still can.0 -
-
-
-
Flake has said if it's shown that he lied then he will not vote for him.
Indeed, when it comes to following through with his vote he is a little ... Flakey?everlast75 wrote: »Flake says a lot of things.....
0 -
Advertisement
-
SimonTemplar wrote: »What is the risk to the GOP of dropping Kavanagh? Is it purely due to the upcoming midterms and the (unlikely) risk of loosing the senate?
As John Oliver pointed out, there is nothing unique about Kavanagh's qualifications. If they turn around and say they are uncomfortable with his testimony and drop his nomination and start the process again with another republican judge who still matches their political ideology, surely that would win them some points.
And I know Kavanagh has made come claims about the scope of presidential power that make him attractive (or pleasing) to the Trump administration, but surely he isn't the only judge who thinks this way.
My point is, I don't see why the GOP are putting all their eggs in Kavanagh's basket when viable alternatives exist for them.
It was widely assumed from all sidesa few weeks ago that Mitch would have made sure the nomination was pulled as ultimately it was easy to get other right wing justices to do his bidding. However it’s not just Trump who wants Kavanaugh, the Bush element of the party pushed really hard for this and the unofficial owners of the Republican Party the Koch brothers liked him also.
So with all that and Mitch’s hatred of losing it looks like this is a hill to die on they have decided.
It’s crazy as Trump interviewed 3 other justices when deciding on Kav. The first Hardiman is relatively centre right and would have sailed through. The second was Amul Thapar a hard-line Scala style judge who Mitch knows very well. As an Indian-American he would have a little tricky to throw the kitchen sink at as the Dems are so worried about optics.
The final rejection was Barrett and ultimately it’s a monumental **** up that Trump said no. A young female judge who the base wanted much more than Kavanaugh.
The GOP could have the optics of the Dems tearing apart an Indian-American, A Devout catholic Mother from the mid-west, but instead they have to defend a white man accused of rape in the era of Me Too. Lunacy.
Kav has the votes unless something more comes out, heck chances a few red state deems may vote for him.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
everlast75 wrote: »So someone with an alcohol problem should not be interviewed without a lawyer?
What about one becoming a Supreme Court judge?
Brings a whole new meaning to "sober as a judge"
Edit. I did think it odd for the honourable judge to appear before the committee without a lawyer but realised why when he began attacking his interviewers. The lawyer would probably have walked out on the spot making Judge Kavanaugh look odd before he even got to sit on the USSC. It's no wonder the ABA took a dim view of his antics.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Captain Obvious wrote: »If you are a child after being thrown in a Trump concentration camp and haven't seen your family in months I'd imagine the sky has fallen pretty hard.
You can't be still banging that drum?
The majority of posters on this thread have a clear (daily) objective, which is to condemn everything that Trump says and does, while acting like it was all wine and roses under Obama. You're all mostly far left liberals, well 90%+ anyway, who consider yourselves to be progressive, and show time and time again, that the truth is of little importance to you. Not just on this issue, but many of them. The latest of course being Kavanaugh.
Personally I believe in due process and if people are found guilty remove them from their jobs then (assuming it's deemed appropriate to do so). Had some woman come out of the woodwork and claimed Obama raped her at a house party 30 years previous I would be saying the same thing too. Indeed I have done so on the back of many democrats who were accused during the #metoo campaign. As you see, I am consistent, and don't believe someone only deserves due process if their politics align with mine.
However, we all know fine well that the vast majority of far left liberals don't think nor operate that way. Again: had some woman come out of the woodwork when Obama was running in 2008, for example, claiming that he raped her at some house party in the 80's, then we all know that the reaction of liberals would have been to say that he should be treated far differently to how you're all currently calling for Kavanaugh to be treated today.
But back to the farcical talk of "Concentration camps":
Perhaps a read of the following might might make some of you snap out of this delusion that Donald Trump's administration is doing something so much different to the Obama one. It's from 2014:When the Obama administration first announced that it would begin detaining and deporting more immigrant families, Michelle Brané, the director of Migrant Rights and Justice Programs at the Women’s Refugee Commission, reacted, “We are gravely concerned by the Administration’s announcement that it will expand the use of family detention and deny families full access to protection under US and international law. While the administration is understandably under pressure to create order out of this humanitarian crisis, locking babies in prison cells and deporting women and young children to dangerous situations are not the answers.”
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Washington, DC, conducted a major study, “Children on the Run” [PDF], that examined this crisis. There has been increased numbers of children and adults seeking asylum since 2009. Eighty-five percent of new applications for asylum in 2012 came from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Altogether, asylum requests from Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Belize increased 435%.
Similar to the current crisis, there was a “surge” registered by the US government beginning in October 2011. In 2011, 4,059 unaccompanied and separated children were apprehended by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). By 2013, 21,537 children were apprehended by CBP.
Out of 104 children from El Salvador, “Sixty-six percent of the children cited violence by organized armed criminal actors as a primary motivator for leaving, and 21% percent discussed abuse in the home.”
There are escalating threats from “drug trafficking, polarized political systems, weak law enforcement and social hardships—such as poverty and unemployment” driving displacement of children as well.
In the midst of this crisis, the rights of children should be the first and foremost priority. The UNHCR study pointed out the Convention on the Rights of the Child “gives particular attention to the special protection needs of children deprived of their family environment and of children who are refugees or are seeking asylum.” The United States could probably grant many of these children Special Immigrant Juveniles visas.
But the Obama administration does not have to worry about violating this treaty. The US and Somalia are two of the only countries in the world that have not ratified this convention. That, in some ways, frees the administration to deny children internationally recognized protections if it would prefer to ship planeloads of children back to each of these Central American countries.
Furthermore, the immigration system has become a deportation and mass incarceration system. Obama has deported an average of 395,689 immigrants each year, a higher rate of deportation than Bush and nearly four times the rate of deportation under President Bill Clinton.
Only 1.82% of asylum applicants—181 people from El Salvador—were granted asylum in 2013, according to the US Justice Department. The number of asylum-seekers from Guatemala and Honduras, who had their asylum applications granted was less than 155.
Private prisons are making money off of warehousing immigrants. CBP, according to the Migration Institute, now “refers more cases for federal criminal prosecution than the FBI. Nationwide, more than half of all federal criminal prosecutions initiated in fiscal year 2013 were for illegal entry or reentry into the United States.”
Patricia Flynn of the ACLU wrote a rather disturbing blog post in which she detailed how she witnessed 50 immigrants being brought into a courtroom shackled and chained to each other. They each pled guilty and then were sent off to a private prison. “It’s the kind of assembly-line justice that might be expected in the gulag prison system of Egypt’s military-backed government,” she declared. [For more, see ACLU's report, "Warehoused and Forgotten."]
The answer to an escalating refugee crisis under Obama has been to advance the militarization of the border and take the criminalization of immigration to the next level. Rather than give appropriate attention to protecting the human rights of children or families, who are fleeing violence and extreme poverty in their countries, this has been Obama’s choice.
Now this was all 6 years into Obama's presidency let's not forget. So why didn't he sort out this mess during his time in the Oval? Put a more kinder system in place? We have seen the images from back then also (the ones that were mistakenly said to have been taken under Trump's administration) and it's not like there weren't protests calling for him to adopt different procedures from the people they were most affecting. So why didn't he take heed? Do something better?
Course I also don't remember too much of an outcry from liberals during this time either. Guess ya'll were all too busy acting like Obama was the second coming (throwing Nobel prizes at him and the like) to be all that concerned about the plight of some South Americans ............. but now you have all the time in the world to be full of righteous indignation on their behalf it would seem. Hhhhhhmmmmmm.
I mean, even if we say that the Donald made things 20% worse (which he hasn't) that still wouldn't justify liberals general radio silence on the matter all those years, which is what it pretty much was (comparatively at least).
Let's be honest: none of you could give two hoots about these people really, just yet another stick to try and beat Trump with. From suggesting he's responsible for reporters being murdered, to displaying fake concern about phony sexual assault allegations, and hand wringing about illegal immigrant children being separated from their families (including by way of photoshop of course).....it doesn't really matter does it, anything will do as long as it chips chips away at a man who it sticks in your craw was elected as president.
Keep going, more power to ye all, but from where I'm sitting, all this faux sanctimony and constant crying of wolf is going to do one thing and that is ensure that old Donald will be hold up at Pennsylvania Ave for a hell of lot longer than any of you would like.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement