Do Republicans appreciate what losing Roe V Wade will do to them?

[LukSkyFokker]

I don’t think Hill ever apologized and probably never will. I watched those hearings closely. She was a psycho stalker.

You watched those hearings closely but not the ones where a sitting President was leading an insurrection? What a dipshit.

 

[rockcasbah]

Thomas is the last justice confirmed by a Senate controlled by the party different than the president who nominated him, and will probably be the last ever.

There might have been some sort of deal to bring the hearings to a close, as it was obvious at the time Biden would have preferred Hill not testify publicly, but there definitely wasn't a deal to confirm him. He couldn't have been confirmed without Democratic votes, but Biden wasn't one of those votes.

I agree with your first para but dont think its possible to be certain there was no backroom deal.

Politics runs on backroom deals, always has. Anyone with a rep for reaching across the aisle, moreso.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The public opinion at the time went both ways, it’s true.

Classic he said she said…. My opinion is that Thomas, like Kavanaugh, was unfit to serve and is a fucking wierdo…. But they wanted a black conservative to replace Marshall… so superficial by today’s standards… and look what it got you.

For me, it’s the stories 4 women corroborating Hill who Biden did a deal not to put on tv that I find interesting , particularly now.

Here’s a good summary:

https://www.history.com/.amp/news/anita-hill-confirmation-hearings-impact

I watched the hearings. She was a certified nut job.

 

[mayfly13]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-clarence-thomas-abortion_n_5cfe9742e4b02ee3477b0c50

I didn't know it was so far back.

I could understand his skepticism, Women's rights groups at the time were very far Left.

But appointing a Catholic who pressured another employee
to watch videos of women having sex with animals?

That's the person deciding on women's breeding.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You watched those hearings closely but not the ones where a sitting President was leading an insurrection? What a dipshit.

Very different. The Thomas hearings were about the future. The 1/6 hearings are mostly a rehash of yesterday’s news.

Members of Republican minority in the Thomas hearings were selected by Republican leadership. The Democratic majority leader did not override any selections. Members of both parties got to question and cross examine the witnesses live on national TV, much of which happened on a weekend.

The 1/6 hearings are scripted political theater, taking weeks, not days. Two GOP committee selections were rejected by the Speaker.

I’m following the news coverage in the Wall Street Journal and of course reading loving updates from Butters. Lol. Hope you’re enjoying the hearings and good luck with whatever it is you hope they achieve.

 

[ll74]

Very different. The Thomas hearings were about the future. The 1/6 hearings are mostly a rehash of yesterday’s news.

Members of Republican minority in the Thomas hearings were selected by Republican leadership. The Democratic majority leader did not override any selections. Members of both parties got to question and cross examine the witnesses live on national TV, much of which happened on a weekend.

The 1/6 hearings are scripted political theater, taking weeks, not days. Two GOP committee selections were rejected by the Speaker.

I’m following the news coverage in the Wall Street Journal and of course reading loving updates from Butters. Lol. Hope you’re enjoying the hearings and good luck with whatever it is you hope they achieve.

Pelosi didn't override selections. She rejected two. McCarthy chose to rescind his selections completely.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Pelosi didn't override selections. She rejected two. McCarthy chose to rescind his selections completely.

Override. Reject. Pick whatever ever word you want. Unlike the House 1/6 committee, no GOP appointees to the Senate judiciary committee were rejected by the Democratic majority leader. You’ve painted yourself into another corner.

 

[YDB95]

Inflation, gas, food, unemployment now. All of it getting worse and exactly who believes that abortion is the burning question facing the nation today?

I don't know about you, but I'm capable of considering more than one issue at a time when I vote.
And in the long term, generations of unwanted children and dead young women are probably a bit more important than the price of gas today.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Inflation, gas, food, unemployment now. All of it getting worse and exactly who believes that abortion is the burning question facing the nation today?

Gas is trending downward and unemployment is low. Your economic ignorance and illiteracy are evident.

 

[ll74]

Roberts basically overturned his own ruling

Override. Reject. Pick whatever ever word you want. Unlike the House 1/6 committee, no GOP appointees to the Senate judiciary committee were rejected by the Democratic majority leader. You’ve painted yourself into another corner.

They aren't synonyms. She had authority to reject selections and she did. McCarthy chose to let her pick them all instead of replacing the two. Repuicans aren't interested in rehashing Jan 6 and found a poltical way to back out.

 

[Rotadom]

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Roberts basically overturned his own ruling

They aren't synonyms. She had authority to reject selections and she did. McCarthy chose to let her pick them all instead of replacing the two. Repuicans aren't interested in rehashing Jan 6 and found a poltical way to back out.

She rejected 2 GOP members. It’s called partisanship. No GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that confirmed Justice Thomas were rejected by the Democratic Senate Majority leadership. I’m done beating your ass for the weekend.

 

[YDB95]

She rejected 2 GOP members. It’s called partisanship.

Two out of five. If she were guilty of what you're suggesting, she would have rejected all five.

No GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that confirmed Justice Thomas were rejected by the Democratic Senate Majority leadership.

True but irrelevant.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Two out of five. If she were guilty of what you're suggesting, she would have rejected all five.

True but irrelevant.

But he "won!"

 

[rockcasbah]

Gas is trending downward and unemployment is low. Your economic ignorance and illiteracy are evident.

“luk’s economic forcast is coming up right after the hair mousse report”

 

[ll74]

She rejected 2 GOP members. It’s called partisanship. No GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that confirmed Justice Thomas were rejected by the Democratic Senate Majority leadership. I’m done beating your ass for the weekend.

She had authority to do so and the committee was setup the way it was because Republicans refused a special committee, which would've given them equal standing or did you memory hole that part? https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000...-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot

The Republicans did not want an investigation and rejected every chance to play a role

 

[Chernosoth]

A common quote is any civilization is only three days, nine meals, away from anarchy. Many nations could have food shortages soon as fuel prices rise. If three days of hunger are enough to make most of the population ready to kill for food, then we may get another view of the sanctity of life.

 

[ll74]

"Either the mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other," the justices wrote.

The dissent warns the decision in this case could be used to challenge other cases involving individual freedoms, including the right to use contraception and the right to marry a same-sex partner.

"We fervently hope that does not happen because of today's decision. We hope that we will not join Justice Scalia in the book of prophets. But we cannot understand how anyone can be confident that today's opinion will be the last of its kind

From https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1107...rity-and-dissent-opinions-dobbs-reveal-schism

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

She had authority to do so and the committee was setup the way it was because Republicans refused a special committee, which would've given them equal standing or did you memory hole that part? https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000...-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot

The Republicans did not want an investigation and rejected every chance to play a role

Senate Republicans objected to an independent commission, therefore Pelosi exercised her power to create a partisan committee in the House. By rejecting 2 GOP leadership appointees, she made it undeniably partisan.

Pelosi’s House 1/6 committee hearings is in no way analogous to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Thomas confirmation hearings. Totally different format, rules, and procedures.

 

[ll74]

Senate Republicans objected to an independent commission

Yes, they objected to a commission that would give them equal authority to accept/reject. Thanks for confirming.

They did so because they didn't want an investigation.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yes, they objected to a commission that would give them equal authority to accept/reject. Thanks for confirming.

They did so because they didn't want an investigation.

Yes, GOP Senators objected to an independent commission. And Pelosi created a partisan committee in the House that is in no way comparable to the Senate Judiciary Committee that confirmed the great Justice Thomas. Thanks for confirming.

 

[ll74]

Yes, GOP Senators objected to an independent commission. And Pelosi created a partisan committee in the House that is in no way comparable to the Senate Judiciary Committee that confirmed the great Justice Thomas. Thanks for confirming.

You might have noticed that I never compared the two. Maybe that's your problem

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You might have noticed that I never compared the two. Maybe that's your problem

Then you missed the entire point. You injected yourself into an exchange I had with another individual without any context. You have a habit of commenting on posts you haven’t read or don’t comprehend. Take 5.

 

[butters]

i may have mentioned this before, or others have, but it bears posting just in case. Alito and his references from the good old dark old ages

"Mathew Hale is notorious in women’s history," said Jill Elaine Hasday, a distinguished McKnight university professor and the centennial professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School. She wrote an excellent piece in May about Hale’s starring role in the leaked draft. "As a 17th century judge, he was regressive and considered behind the times even in his own day."

"The reason I know Matthew Hale was that he has had an enormous impact on law of rape," Hasday told me, explaining that Hale's most prominent gift to humanity was a treatise that would become the dominant defense for centuries for men who raped their wives. But he's perhaps best known, she acknowledged, for his invaluable contributions to adjudicating witchcraft.

he was instrumental in the hangings of 2 women as witches

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...pc=U531&cvid=3ed3e7b969ff4314a2330dcdc492b958

 

[KeithD]

i may have mentioned this before, or others have, but it bears posting just in case. Alito and his references from the good old dark old ages



he was instrumental in the hangings of 2 women as witches

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...pc=U531&cvid=3ed3e7b969ff4314a2330dcdc492b958

And his gaff was pointed out to him when the draft was leaked, and he left the reference in.