Republicans leap to Kavanaugh's defense, but drag their feet on Violence Against Women Act

[phands]

WTF is wrong with the gop????

While Senate Republicans are working overtime to move Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination forward despite sexual assault allegations, the Violence Against Women Act is due to expire in nine days if Congress doesn’t act. Hmmm, what do those two things have in common?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...drag-their-feet-on-Violence-Against-Women-Act

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Other than the sexist name and good PR for the politicians who enacted it, what does the Violence Against Women Act actually do that isn't already covered in your other laws? Is there a Violence Against Men Act too? Did they sexistly renew that one but not this one? I have not read this act, and I am amazed if violence against women (and men) wasn't already a crime before it.

 

[RVonse]

Excellent point Jolly.

As for Kavanaugh, if I were the Republicans I would give the accuser a few days to testify and vote regardless of whether she even shows up. Let the vote decide whether he gets in or not. And just pick someone else if he doesn't.

What I would not do is play any more games with the democrats.

 

[phands]

Excellent point Jolly.

As for Kavanaugh, if I were the Republicans I would give the accuser a few days to testify and vote regardless of whether she even shows up. Let the vote decide whether he gets in or not. And just pick someone else if he doesn't.

What I would not do is play any more games with the democrats.

It's the revolticans who are playing games. The outrageous hypocrisy of the stalling on Garland and the obscene rush to appoint this horrible bigot is almost beyond belief.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The outrageous hypocrisy fo the stalling on Garland and the obscene rush to appoint this horrible bigot is almost beyond belief.

Agreed. What it shows is the hyper-partisanship that has taken over the USA. You need more Obama with his "There is no red america, or blue america. There is the United States of America" and "Yes WE can", and less Hillary with her baskets of deploreables and "I'm with HER". It will not only win Democrats the elections, but push the country back towards sanity.

 

[Jarhyn]

Excellent point Jolly.

As for Kavanaugh, if I were the Republicans I would give the accuser a few days to testify and vote regardless of whether she even shows up. Let the vote decide whether he gets in or not. And just pick someone else if he doesn't.

What I would not do is play any more games with the democrats.

Yes, just vote without further discussion perjury, stolen emails, or financial vulnerabilities... great idea.

This fucker is not qualified, and anything the rest of the legislature can do to sink him should stay on the table.

Do you think that Perjury is acceptable from a SCOTUS nominee?
Do you think illegal use of emails is acceptable from a SCOTUS nominee?
Do you think that rape is acceptable from a SCOTUS nominee?
Do you think that mysterious financial fuckery is acceptable from a SCOTUS nominee?
Do you think supporting racial policies with regards to our laws is acceptable from a SCOTUS nominee?

If you think any of these are deal-breakers, and they should ALL be deal breakers, then you should not support partisan efforts to force the confirmation

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Question for both Democrats and Republicans:

Would you vote in favour of a judge nominated by the other side? Do the qualifications and vetting even matter to you, or does which party they belong to make up your mind already?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Question for both Democrats and Republicans:

Would you vote in favour of a judge nominated by the other side? Do the qualifications and vetting even matter to you, or does which party they belong to make up your mind already?

Probably not. This isn't because those things don't matter, but it's because the hyper partisanship which started back in the nomination process means that anyone who gets the point of being put up for a vote is sure to be someone who would be making ideological rulings which I feel would be bad for the country.

If people could be counted on to act as reasonable adults from the beginning, then acting as a reasonable adult in response would be warranted. That's not a reasonable assumption about the other side which could be made, though.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The outrageous hypocrisy fo the stalling on Garland and the obscene rush to appoint this horrible bigot is almost beyond belief.

Agreed. What it shows is the hyper-partisanship that has taken over the USA. You need more Obama with his "There is no red america, or blue america. There is the United States of America" and "Yes WE can", and less Hillary with her baskets of deploreables and "I'm with HER". It will not only win Democrats the elections, but push the country back towards sanity.

Except the reaction to Obama by the racist deplorables are a big part of why we are where we are. Much of that reaction was due to outright racism, stoked by the GOP, NRA, and other alt-right wing groups for the last several decades.

Stop sugar coating it.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Question for both Democrats and Republicans:

Would you vote in favour of a judge nominated by the other side? Do the qualifications and vetting even matter to you, or does which party they belong to make up your mind already?

Probably not. This isn't because those things don't matter, but it's because the hyper partisanship which started back in the nomination process means that anyone who gets the point of being put up for a vote is sure to be someone who would be making ideological rulings which I feel would be bad for the country.

If people could be counted on to act as reasonable adults from the beginning, then acting as a reasonable adult in response would be warranted. That's not a reasonable assumption about the other side which could be made, though.

Obama proved this incorrect when he nominated Merrick Garland. One side unreasonably opposed a milquetoast, middle of the road judge who would have probably been a reasonable balancing force on the court, and then proceeded to appoint a much more radical right wing nominee by changing the rules as soon as they got the chance.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Question for both Democrats and Republicans:

Would you vote in favour of a judge nominated by the other side? Do the qualifications and vetting even matter to you, or does which party they belong to make up your mind already?

Probably not. This isn't because those things don't matter, but it's because the hyper partisanship which started back in the nomination process means that anyone who gets the point of being put up for a vote is sure to be someone who would be making ideological rulings which I feel would be bad for the country.

If people could be counted on to act as reasonable adults from the beginning, then acting as a reasonable adult in response would be warranted. That's not a reasonable assumption about the other side which could be made, though.

Obama proved this incorrect when he nominated Merrick Garland. One side unreasonably opposed a milquetoast, middle of the road judge who would have probably been a reasonable balancing force on the court, and then proceeded to appoint a much more radical right wing nominee by changing the rules as soon as they got the chance.

Ya, and that worked out so fucking well. Bringing a flower to a knife fight leaves you lying bloody on the road while the other guys pisses on your flower.

 

[EvoUK]

On a conservative forum I frequent (TWeb) because I like to get out of the bubble, the only thing mentioned about Kavanaugh is the rape allegations, which is essentially dismissed as a common Dem ploy and should be dismissed unless iron-clad proof is produced.

What isn't mentioned is any of the above in this thread. I was wondering if there were any links to sites showing the evidence for the other misgivings (finance, racism, perjury, emails) from non-totally partisan sites are available?

I'm not asking you to do my homework for me (ok, maybe I am a little), but rather as this is ongoing if anyone has anything to hand without the google-fu.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

On a conservative forum I frequent (TWeb) because I like to get out of the bubble, the only thing mentioned about Kavanaugh is the rape allegations, which is essentially dismissed as a common Dem ploy and should be dismissed unless iron-clad proof is produced.

What isn't mentioned is any of the above in this thread. I was wondering if there were any links to sites showing the evidence for the other misgivings (finance, racism, perjury, emails) from non-totally partisan sites are available?

I'm not asking you to do my homework for me (ok, maybe I am a little), but rather as this is ongoing if anyone has anything to hand without the google-fu.

Here's a quick summary of the perjury stuff. It's kind of iffy, so fortunately, the guy's kind of rapey.

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/did-brett-kavanaugh-lie-to-congress-the-first-time-he-was-appointed/

 

[blastula]

Other than the sexist name

YES! ALL LIVES MATTER!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Other than the sexist name

YES! ALL LIVES MATTER!

Indeed. How about we renew this Act, and change its name to the Violence Against Men Act, and change nothing else about it. Then lets see if people get alarmed or upset about that.

And also, does nobody here know what this Act actually does? I asked this before and there has been no answer. Does it do anything of value that previous laws didn't? Or was enacting it just for good PR?

- - - Updated - - -

On a conservative forum I frequent (TWeb) because I like to get out of the bubble, the only thing mentioned about Kavanaugh is the rape allegations, which is essentially dismissed as a common Dem ploy and should be dismissed unless iron-clad proof is produced.

What isn't mentioned is any of the above in this thread. I was wondering if there were any links to sites showing the evidence for the other misgivings (finance, racism, perjury, emails) from non-totally partisan sites are available?

I'm not asking you to do my homework for me (ok, maybe I am a little), but rather as this is ongoing if anyone has anything to hand without the google-fu.

I find your entire approach refreshing.

 

[blastula]

WTF is wrong with the gop????

While Senate Republicans are working overtime to move Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination forward despite sexual assault allegations, the Violence Against Women Act is due to expire in nine days if Congress doesn’t act. Hmmm, what do those two things have in common?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...drag-their-feet-on-Violence-Against-Women-Act

https://twitter.com/JesseLehrich/status/1041846669086744577

the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate 78-22.

the 6 highest ranking Rs on @senjudiciary voted against it:
– Grassley
– Hatch
– Graham
– Cornyn
– Lee
– Cruz

 

[EvoUK]

I find your entire approach refreshing.

How so? That I go to conservative sites or that I'm asking for references?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How so? That I go to conservative sites or that I'm asking for references?

Yes. You appear venture out of your bubble and consider matters in a non-partisan way. This is to be admired.

 

[Politesse]

Other than the sexist name and good PR for the politicians who enacted it, what does the Violence Against Women Act actually do that isn't already covered in your other laws? Is there a Violence Against Men Act too? Did they sexistly renew that one but not this one? I have not read this act, and I am amazed if violence against women (and men) wasn't already a crime before it.

I think this is a prefectly fair question. It would not be the first time that a largely empty congressional act with a popular name made it to the floor. The Act has had the following practical effects:

- Originally passed in 1994, it opened up $1.6 Billion dollars to pursue previously uninvestigated or unprosecuted cases of violence against women by men. This was in response to reports that such cases had been disproportionated dropped or dismissed by civil or legal authorities for many decades.

- Those convicted as a result of those investigations were subject to immediate and mandatory restitution upon sentencing.

- If a state refused to prosecute a case, it legalized (potential) civil redress to the victim via the civil court system.

Originally, it had strong bipartisan support, passing with a roughly 2/3 majority in the house and Senate. Clinton signed it into law; Bush Jr re-authorized it in 2000 and 2005.

There is no Violence Against Men Act, to my knowledge, though of course any physical violence against another person is already a crime for both genders. It is not a crime for a police unit, court, judge, or prosecutor to refuse to investigate something though, or to claim insufficient funding as a justification for doing so.

 

[blastula]

Indeed. How about we renew this Act, and change its name to the Violence Against Men Act, and change nothing else about it. Then lets see if people get alarmed or upset about that.

Are you kidding? As a feminist, Violence Against Men sounds good to me. More please!

Yes, to support an act to try to do something about violence against women, that means you don't care about any other kind of violence. #LogicBomb!