ChrisWeigant.com

Democrats Should Be Prepared To Lose This Nomination Battle

[ Posted Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 – 16:26 PDT ]

I normally prefer optimism over pessimism when writing about politics, and I always try to steer completely clear of downright defeatism. I think my work over the years would prove this to be generally true. At the same time, I always strive to be realistic, which leads me to the sad conclusion that Democrats are almost sure to lose the upcoming battle over Donald Trump's most-recent Supreme Court nomination. Democratic politicians and their supporters should be mentally prepared for this outcome, because it is far and away the most likely to occur. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this is probably going to be a fight Democrats are going to wage unsuccessfully on the Senate floor.

Of course, Democrats should indeed fight the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as hard as is humanly possible, due to the stakes at hand. Not just Roe v. Wade but a whole host of civil rights, workers' rights, minority rights, gay rights, voting rights, and consumer rights (among many, many others) are at risk of being tossed aside as the highest court lurches even farther to the right. It's impossible to accurately count how many rights are at grave risk, in fact, because there are so many possible 5-4 decisions looming that could turn back the clock in any number of ways. The stakes are higher than they have been for a Supreme Court nominee in decades, in fact. It's hard to even overstate the case, at this point. For all the pious talk of respecting stare decisis that we're soon going to hear from Kavanaugh during the nomination hearings, there are a whole host of laws that conservatives on the court have been absolutely itching to overturn for a very long time. With a solid 5-4 majority, there will be absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so.

Which is why Democrats are now girding their loins for an epic political battle -- as they well should. The math is so tantalizingly close that Democrats can see a viable path to stopping the confirmation. If just one Republican senator voted against the nominee, and if all the Democrats hung together, they could block Kavanaugh from the high court. Unless John McCain unexpectedly shows up to vote, the Senate is currently balanced on a 50-49 knife edge. If only 99 senators are present to vote then Vice President Mike Pence won't even be required, because there will be no tie possible no matter which way the vote goes.

So far, there are two main targets for Democrats to entice across the aisle -- Maine's Susan Collins and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, both of whom are supporters of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood. But this target list could even be expanded. Ron Paul is making vague noises about not being happy with the nominee, but this is most likely nothing more than grandstanding. Voters in Kentucky are generally pretty tolerant of Paul's libertarian quirkiness -- but only up to a certain point. Denying a conservative majority on the court is likely far past that point (and Paul likely knows this already), so he's probably just now looking to get his name in the news. But there are other Republicans disaffected with the president who might be convinced to vote with the Democrats, just to stick a thumb in Trump's eye on the way out the door (all of these possibilities are retiring this year, so they don't have to worry about the voters' wrath in November). Jeff Flake immediately springs to mind, but he isn't the only possibility in this regard. Democrats only need one aisle-crosser to deny the nomination, after all.

But all of that is making a rather large assumption: that the Democrats will stick together themselves. There may, of course, be defectors from the Democratic camp too. There are three prime possibilities in this category, all of whom voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch last year: Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. All three are not-so-coincidentally up for re-election in very red states that Donald Trump won by large margins. Two out of the three are currently polling slightly behind their Republican opponents in the upcoming midterms. This, in fact, is the primary reason Mitch McConnell is going to hustle the nomination through before November -- to get these Democrats on the record, which will (one way or another) lead to Democratic disappointment.

No matter how bad the political landscape is in the Senate, however, Democrats could get one silver-lining political benefit from the upcoming fight, even if they are ultimately unsuccessful in derailing the nomination. Even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, the hearings will focus heavily on not just Roe, but other substantial issues. Foremost among these for Democrats is healthcare, since a 5-4 court could obliterate what remains of Obamacare. Democrats are already geared up for this aspect of the battle, and are already predicting that confirming Kavanaugh will mean the end of the guarantee that people with pre-existing conditions can buy health insurance. That is a very big deal to the public, as we witnessed in the congressional "repeal and replace" debate. It is also a has very real chance of happening, as a court case which could prompt such a ruling is already winding its way upward through the federal courts, and it could easily end up before the Supreme Court at some time in the next year. So this is not just empty fearmongering.

Healthcare was -- before Anthony Kennedy even announced his retirement -- already the top issue (or, at the least, in the top three) for voters in the midterm season. Democrats have been expertly campaigning on it, since the public trusts them far more than Republicans to deal with healthcare as a political issue. The nomination battle is just going to reinforce this in dozens upon dozens of House races this fall. It's not just abortion -- all healthcare reform is at risk from a conservative court. And this issue is critical for the biggest demographic group of voters that Democrats were already targeting (in the hopes of building a big blue wave) -- suburban women. Such women care deeply about healthcare and what the changing landscape means for their loved ones. Add a 5-4 conservative court into the mix, and the issue becomes even more crucial, politically.

So what could help Republicans in the Senate could hurt them very badly in the House. This may not be all that big a worry for them, since they were already in serious danger of losing the House anyway. In fact, it'll be hard to separate the Supreme Court issue from all the other issues voters will be thinking about in the voting booth this November, no matter what the outcome. But, as I speculated a few weeks ago (just before Kennedy made his announcement, in fact), perhaps this will be the first election where Democratic voters start treating Supreme Court picks as a major motivating factor when voting. Republicans have already been doing so for decades now, and the Democrats have a long way to go to catch up, really.

Elections have consequences, and one of the biggest and longest-lasting is judicial picks and confirmations. The Senate and the president set the legal tone for the entire nation, and now that both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have each "gone nuclear," all judges up to and including Supreme Court justices are now confirmed by simple majorities in the Senate. It will be ironic if this is the election that Democratic voters really wake up to this fact, because they will quite likely not be able to make any changes in the people responsible -- it's not a presidential year, and the landscape for Democrats in the Senate is so daunting that it would be a small miracle if they regained control (even if there's a very large blue wave in November). Instead, if Democratic voters start caring a lot more about judicial picks, they are going to first make their feelings known (by their votes) in the House -- which has nothing at all to do with the process.

Democrats in the Senate may not take a whole lot of solace in this, because they're about to enter into a confirmation battle they seem pretty likely to lose. But fighting hard and losing may make the issue even more acute for Democratic voters across the country this time around, which could lead to even more gains in the House. That's something, at the very least, but beyond this particular election year it may bear fruit down the road. If Democratic voters start regularly weighing the issue of judicial picks as heavily and as seriously as Republican voters already do, it could lead to an uptick in turnout rates in key races in 2020 and beyond -- when Democrats will have a decent shot at taking back both the presidency and the Senate. At this point, that may not seem like much of a silver lining, but this could bear some long-term dividends even if Kavanaugh is confirmed.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

57 Comments on “Democrats Should Be Prepared To Lose This Nomination Battle”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    to some extent conservatives are merely delaying the inevitable demographic shift away from the president's core constituency, damming the tide with limitations on voting rights and civil rights, gerrymandering and a packed court system. when the dam finally breaks it will break that much harder. however, in the meantime there will be some hard times ahead for anyone who wants a living wage or an abortion.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Interesting article that offers an idea that I haven’t heard anyone else suggest:
    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/395696-the-mcconnell-rule-is-law-and-senate-democrats-should-sue-to-enforce-it

    Not sure if it would work, but an inventive idea none-the-less.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news

    No worries, CW, we knew they'd shove some horror show through.

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As long as the Democrats look at the Supreme Court nominations as issue they can exploit they will continue to lose elections and by extension lose the nomination battles.

    What the Democratic Party needs to do if they want to win elections is solve problems instead of trying to exploit them.

    One solution to the problem could be to win many elections over the next decade or so and when the conservative majority retires or dies then hope that the Democrats have control.

    Another solution would be for the Democrats to make a constitutional amendment for the elimination of lifetime appointments.

    Each Supreme Court judge could be appointed to a nine year term. One year before the term ends the current president can reappoint the judge and the Senate can confirm or not within 30 or 60 days to time for another appointment if the Senate rejects the candidate or does not override a president's rejection.

    If the president does not want to reappoint the judge he/she must reject the reappointment of the judge six months before the term ends or the reappointment is automatic. The Senate can override if the president rejects reappointment.

    These deadlines will be known and scheduled instead of the unknown surprise of justice retiring. If a justice dies or retires early a replacement will be appointed to fill the rest of the term.

    As they will not be lifetime appointments it will not be as permanent as the current appointments and will be subject to the checks and balances that lifetime appointments shield the justices from, so there will be less riding on each appointment.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Trump insults NATO."

    It is like a rabbit judging ice dancing - Trump can't insult anybody in a subject he is completely clueless in.

    What a buffoon.

  6. [6] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Although it has so far at least appeared to be kinda 'soft-pedaled', the real fear of a more conservative court is bound to be repeal of Roe v. Wade, or the loss of the right to unrestricted abortions.

    As an ideological libertarian, I personally favor any woman's right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Hell, if it were up to me, we might have some mandatory abortions, in fact I can even see the need for 'retroactive" abortions (chew on those two concepts, Weigantians!)

    What I cannot abide is the typical Dem/lib argument in support of abortion rights that seeks to pick arbitrary points along the unbroken continuum of human existence, at which by some magical process, the fetus is instantly transformed from sub-human to human.

    Human life typically advances along a sort of "bell curve" path - we tend to start life wearing diapers and making unintelligible noises, and we tend to end life wearing diapers and making unintelligible noises.

    If you Dems/Libs are willing to justify terminating a human life at some arbitrary point along the left end of the bell curve, logic and consistency demands the right to terminate it at the same point on the downward end of the curve, otherwise you're being hypocrites, right?

  7. [7] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki-

    What are you going on about? Assisted suicide is generally supported by a majority of Democrats and Republicans. Democrats currently poll in the 80's in support, Republicans in the 60's in support.

    Your manufactured hypocrisy needs a good dose of catching up on the issue...

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if you want to draw an accurate comparison between the very old and the very young, fetuses are the equivalent of post brain death when the body can only continue functioning if aided by machinery. sure the body can be called technically "alive" if one can call it that, but for all intents and purposes whatever made that body a human being is not there.

  9. [9] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and that's just the six to eight month fetus. the old-age equivalent of a one to five month embryo would be a collection of decomposing cells.

    i think i'll end there, this analogy is getting morbid.

    JL

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    and that's just the six to eight month fetus. the old-age equivalent of a one to five month embryo would be a collection of decomposing cells.

    A baby has a heartbeat at sex weeks old...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting article that offers an idea that I haven’t heard anyone else suggest:
    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/395696-the-mcconnell-rule-is-law-and-senate-democrats-should-sue-to-enforce-it

    Not sure if it would work, but an inventive idea none-the-less.

    Democrats think that an arbitrary "rule" of their OWN making has the force of law??

    Talk about desperation..... :D

    Ya'all need to come to grips with reality..

    Ya lost...

    Yer gonna lose..

    You will continue to lose as long as you refuse to acknowledge that President Trump is YOUR president and he is doing some really great things for this country..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed.."
    -Captain Smilin Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  12. [12] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    How many is “sex”? A fetus has a heartbeat at six weeks old. It’s the central component of our circulatory system, so it has to develop early.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    WHAT KAVANAUGH WAS SECRETLY CAUGHT DOING HOURS AFTER TRUMP’S NOMINATION WILL SILENCE THE CRITICS
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/11/kavanaugh-feeds-homeless/

    Go ahead, Democrats..

    Pile on Judge Kavanaugh...

    I double dog dare you...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    How many is “sex”? A fetus has a heartbeat at six weeks old. It’s the central component of our circulatory system, so it has to develop early.

    DOH!!!!

    SIX weeks old.. My bust. Thanx for pointing that out..

    As to the rest.. Who cares WHY it has a heartbeat at 6 weeks old. It does...

    It's incredibly hypocritical of Democrats to be so hysterically concerned about the children of criminals on the southern border but enthusiastically support the wholesale slaughter of TENS OF MILLIONS of innocent children of innocent Americans...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:
  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me ask ya'all something..

    Are ya'all willing to give the GOP a stronger majority in the Senate in exchange for a token show of opposition against Kavanaugh that will, at best, simply delay the inevitable??

    Serious question there.. Would appreciate a serious answer..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:
  18. [18] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Bashi

    I've re-read my [6] twice, and nowhere do I find any mention of "suicide". 'Suicide' is by definition, voluntary on the part of the person being killed, is it not?

    Abortion (Killing an unborn person) is , likewise by definition, INvoluntary on the part of the person being killed, is it not?

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS

    If you Dems/Libs are willing to justify terminating a human life at some arbitrary point along the left end of the bell curve, logic and consistency demands the right to terminate it at the same point on the downward end of the curve, otherwise you're being hypocrites, right?

    Do you have a clue of the philosophy behind Roe vs. Wade?

    The "arbitrary point" is the core to the ruling.

    Also, how much study and research have you done into embryology that makes you the expert around here?

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    Serious question there.. Would appreciate a serious answer..

    We'll just harass the living daylights out of all the illegal Russian judges to set them up for impeachment down the road.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, that's an answer..

    Dunno if I would call it serious. :D

    "Any intelligent guesses as to where they might be heading???"
    "Iran?? Iraq?? Saudi Arabia??"
    "Well, those are guesses. Don't know if I would call them 'intelligent'.."

    -AIR FORCE ONE

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you have a clue of the philosophy behind Roe vs. Wade?

    And right there is the exact problem with Democrats. They are interested in "philosophy"...

    Whereas the discussion is the LAW....

  23. [23] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    I find it terminally weird that you repeatedly accuse me of claiming to be a "know-it-all" expert in regards to matters of a political and/or ideological nature, where there exists no 'truth' and no 'error', no 'right' and no 'wrong', but only matters of personal opinion.

    So, now I suppose you can accuse me of claiming to be an expert on the subject of 'weird', right?

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, now I suppose you can accuse me of claiming to be an expert on the subject of 'weird', right?

    "Uhh, that would be me."
    -Beach Jock, BEDAZZLED

    :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, now I suppose you can accuse me of claiming to be an expert on the subject of 'weird', right?

    "Uhh, that would be me."
    -Beach Jock, BEDAZZLED

    :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump says NATO withdrawal is 'unnecessary' after allies agree to increase spending
    The U.S. president claimed NATO allies had made unprecedented commitments to increase spending on their own defense, before adding he believed he could pull out of the group without Congressional approval.
    However, this would be "unnecessary" because allies had agreed to increase their defense spending.
    “We had a very intense summit,” German Chancellor told reporters after the meeting.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/trump-says-nato-allies-have-agreed-to-increase-their-defense-spending-.html

    WINNING!!! :D

  27. [27] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki-

    When you are being intentionally vague and trolling, I mind not arbitrarily deciding my own meaning to your posts.

    If you want to talk about involuntary euthanasia, then spit it out rather than dance around it. Though I still think it is a poor attempt at manufactured hypocrisy...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrat Heroine arrested for fondling

    Porn star Stormy Daniels arrested while performing in Ohio strip club
    Por star Stormy Daniels, who has made headlines for an alleged affair with Donald Trump, was arrested during a performance at a Columbus, Ohio, strip club, according to her attorney.
    Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti in a Twitter post claimed the arrest "was politically motivated, and "reeks of desperation."
    The actress is suing Trump and the president's former lawyer seeking to void have a nondisclosure agreement she signed to keep quiet about her purported tryst with Trump. The White House denies any affair.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/stormy-daniels-arrested-in-columbus-ohio-while-performing-avenatti.html

    Democrat Heroine arrested for fondling!!

    :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for those who live and die by polls???

    Trump is as popular as Obama was in the middle of his first presidential term, survey says
    https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article214749845.html

    Don'tcha all just HATE it when FACTS and REALITY are so.. so... inconvenient to ya'all's hysterical ideological slavery?? :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you are being intentionally vague and trolling, I mind not arbitrarily deciding my own meaning to your posts.

    Of course ya don't mind.. That's how ya can get thru your day.. Changing the meaning of words and comments that you disagree with to something you agree with.. :D

    It's called LIVING IN A BUBBLE :D

  31. [31] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Yawn...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yawn...

    I accept your concession. :D

  33. [33] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Still haven't looked in mirror?

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh lord it's hard to be humble..
    When yer perfect in every way...
    I can't wait to look in the mirror...
    I get better looking each day...
    To know me is to love me...
    I must be one helluva man..
    Oh lord it's hard to be humble..
    But I'm doing the best that I can...

    That answer your question??

    :D

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [28] Democrat Heroine arrested for fondling

    Not true. Amazing the way your side can get the facts wrong right out of the gate like that. Stormy was arrested because someone (perhaps someone known to the arresting officer?) managed to reach out and touch her during a performance.

    Not sure what the crime rate is in Columbus, Ohio, but I'm sure that local residents will be relieved to know that valuable law enforcement resources have been committed to keeping them safe from the corruption caused when a customer manages to lean out and at swipe at the leg of an exotic dancer as she passes..

    ...politically motivated nonsense.

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    FBI agent Peter Strzok now on the witness stand in Congress, making mincemeat out of GOP congressmen hoping to make hay out of his private emails.

    To the charge that the investigation into Trump was politically motivated, Strzok has a simple answer: then why was it kept secret until after the election?

    heh.

  37. [37] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That answer your question??

    So, that would be a no...

  38. [38] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Re Emmys: "Westworld" should have been nominated for outstanding writing. Travesty!

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    a corpse has a fully formed heart, lungs, stomach and brain. many corpses also have bank accounts, social security numbers and IQ scores. why then don't they have the same rights as corporations, much less actual people? perhaps because they lack something else that we consider to be a vital aspect of being a person. same goes for fetuses; they may have many of the characteristics of a full-fledged person, but most folks still don't consider them people.

  40. [40] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What I cannot abide is the typical Dem/lib argument in support of abortion rights that seeks to pick arbitrary points along the unbroken continuum of human existence, at which by some magical process, the fetus is instantly transformed from sub-human to human.

    It isn’t “some magical process”, it is when the fetus is able to survive on its own outside of the womb that most people draw the line on abortions (This occurs, typically, around the 23rd week). It is “science”. It is also common sense.

    The argument that the fetus is “alive” at conception and therefore must be protected ignores the obvious flaw in this argument: sperm, required to fertilize the egg, are also alive and no one is rushing to protect them from winding up trapped in a tissue, dying in the waste basket. We don’t have a memorial service every time a woman has her period, either.

    While I am not in favor of abortions after 23 weeks, I recognize that there are times when they may be appropriate and necessary. If the fetus is determined to have no heartbeat or brain activity, there is no reason to force the woman to carry it any longer.

    As for the other end of that curve, are you suggesting that we require families to keep family members on life support until their bodies shut themselves down? You didn’t say “suicide”, but “pulling the plug” has the exact same result.

    The anti-abortion backers aren’t “pro-life”, they are “pro-birth”. They seem to believe that God puts a little version of our fully developed bodies into a woman’s womb at conception. This lack of scientific knowledge is something they wear like a badge of honor.

  41. [41] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Why doesn’t Trump just admit that he had an affair with Daniels and paid her off to keep her quiet? Denying the affair, while admitting to the non-disclosure contract and payment makes Trump look like the worst negotiator ever! What other event that didn’t occur is Trump willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement for?

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump says NATO withdrawal is 'unnecessary' after allies agree to increase spending

    Trump also said that North Korea has agreed to denuclearization, and that was bullshit, too! Trump seems to believe that the other members of NATO agreed to up their contributions from 2% to 4%; only problem is that no one else in the meeting actually agreed to this.

    Watching Trump answer reporters questions was surreal. When Trump talks about the NATO nations he sounds like a macho- tough guy who doesn’t take crap from anyone! But let the topic shift to Russia and Putin and Trump becomes a child who will do anything to get the person he idolizes to like him. Seriously, Trump admitted that his goal is for he and Putin to become friends!

    And why does Trump think he needs to ask Putin whether Russia interfered with our election? Our intelligence agencies (and the Senate investigation) have already made it clear that Russia is guilty. So much for his tough-guy routine! Not that anyone believes Trump would actually say to Putin that he doesn’t want him to help Trump get re-elected.

  43. [43] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen [40]

    Even new-born full-term babies are unable to "survive outside the womb ON THEIR OWN". My mother, from sometime in her late 80's until she died at 99, was "unable to survive outside the womb ON HER OWN"!

    I seriously doubt you'd have been OK with a 'retroactive abortion' anytime during that 12 or 14 yr period of her life???

    If the Dem/Lib attitude really AIN'T "hypocrisy" as all Dems/Libs keep telling us, it's definitely inconsistency!

  44. [44] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CRS,

    you had your mom on a heart and lung machine for a decade? or you mean she had assistance in tending to her needs? if you want to take the statement to extremes, very few of us could truly survive completely on our own. i doubt most of today's americans could last very long without society to provide a supermarket and air conditioning. but there's survival and then there's survival.

    JL

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If the Dem/Lib attitude really AIN'T "hypocrisy" as all Dems/Libs keep telling us, it's definitely inconsistency!

    Well, your ignorance has definitely been consistent! A 4 week old fetus cannot be kept alive outside of the mother’s womb. Premature babies that were only in their 16th week have a slim chance of surviving in a neo-natal pediatric ICU. They are physically developed enough that they have a chance of living outside of the womb.

    Do you have a speech impediment that causes you to confuse “room” and “womb”, because I doubt your mom spent the last two decades of her life living in someone’s vagina! But then again, freaks gonna get freaky, so maybe she did.

  46. [46] 
    John M wrote:

    [26] Michale

    "Trump says NATO withdrawal is 'unnecessary' after allies agree to increase spending
    The U.S. president claimed NATO allies had made unprecedented commitments to increase spending on their own defense, before adding he believed he could pull out of the group without Congressional approval.
    However, this would be "unnecessary" because allies had agreed to increase their defense spending.
    “We had a very intense summit,” German Chancellor told reporters after the meeting.

    WINNING!!! :D"

    "But French President Emmanuel Macron Thursday rejected Trump's assertion.

    "There was a communiqué released yesterday it was very detailed and I invite you to read it ... It shows the measures approved by all the member states. This communiqué is clear, it reaffirms a commitment to 2% in 2024. That is all," Macron said."

    NOT WINNING!!! :-D

  47. [47] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen

    Have you always had reading comprehension problems, it is it a recent development?

    I wrote (using YOUR verbiage from [40]), that she was "unable to live OUTSIDE the womb ON HER OWN". Clearly she ahd been able to do so for 8 0r 9 decades, but at that point she was unable to do so ON HER OWN.

    How did you get from that clear and concise statement, that she was "inside someon's vagina"?

    Actually, don't bother - I'd really prefer NOT to know the answer to that.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    NOT WINNING!!! :-D

    So, you are happy your own country is not winning...

    Sad...

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Strzok still testifying. Has had to weather attacks from committee chairman Troy Gowdy who has been insisting on taking everything Strzok wrote in his chatty emails as literally as possible.

    Republicans getting some shit thrown back at them as well. Strzok essentially confirmed that he knows of classified evidence of reciprocal communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians. About Mueller's investigation, Strzok says, "It is not politically motivated, it is not a witch hunt, it is not a hoax."

    Gowdy is trying to beat the horse until it's hamburger. Several Democrats breaking in to protest Gowdy's behavior, as he was coming very close to acting like a stereotypical Southern prosecutor, bellowing hyperbole. At the end of one exchange, he was chided by a New Jersey congresswoman who sarcastically added, "this isn't Benghazi."

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    What I cannot abide is the typical Dem/lib argument in support of abortion rights that seeks to pick arbitrary points

    You do understand this was the ruling of the Supreme Court? And as for inconsistency, where are Libertarians on drivers licences? At their Presidential Debate in 2016 the eventual candidate was booed for saying that he thought drivers licences were a good idea.

    Where do you stand on drivers licenses - evil government interference or imposing jack-booted rules on the ability of a drunk 7-year-old to careen down the freeway at 100mph?

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stucki: You can't tell me that abortion law is about zygotes. Opposition to abortion existed long before they were put on ugly posters. What it really is about is control over women, specifically their reproductive ability. It is punishment for having engaged in sex outside of marriage for some.

    Because, when you think about it, there is a strain of conservativism that entertains the idea that government's authority ends at our skins. We should not be prosecuted for what we think, or how well we maintain our health. Chili Fajitas are our own business and base jumping is our decision regardless of the risk.

    So why not leave the decision freely up to the woman in question? Isn't control of one's own body the very bedrock of conservativism and libertarianism? It boggles the mind that there would be an exception in this one case. In this context, Roe v. Wade makes the liberal counter-argument, that the fetus has rights after viability that supercede its biological dependency.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Strzok still testifying. Has had to weather attacks from committee chairman Troy Gowdy who has been insisting on taking everything Strzok wrote in his chatty emails as literally as possible.

    ya mean, like ya'all do with President Trump???

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    So why not leave the decision freely up to the woman in question?

    Yer right.. Let's leave the question up to the woman for ANY of their children..

    Casey Anthony is a good example...

    :^/

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:
  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Strzok still testifying. Has had to weather attacks from committee chairman Troy Gowdy who has been insisting on taking everything Strzok wrote in his chatty emails as literally as possible.

    ya mean, like ya'all do with President Trump???

    When has anyone here had the opportunity to view Trump’s private communications to be able to do that? Trump’s tweets are for public view, so those are free game to comment on.

    I do look forward to Mueller releasing the private communications between Putin and Trump’s campaign. I wonder if we will find that Trump giving up on the US’s objection to Russia claim to Crimea had been the plan all along!

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, support/opposition to abortion is not on clear Rep/Dem lines.

    There are large majorities in both parties who support the opposite of the headline positions.

    The issue is used as a litmus test by both sides, as it is a good vote winner. My old friend, an evangelical pastor, feels that his side is "losing the pro-life" battle and it is the #1 issue for him and his wife. If he "won" all that would happen is that a lot of supporters of "women's rights" would feel they are "losing" and it would become their #1 issue.

    The problem for Republicans is that overturning Roe vs. Wade would result in abortion being illegal in red states, and some purple states. In those purple states the additional motivation to vote Democrat could well tip the balance - most Republican lawmakers in these states would be very unhappy, but are caught in a vise of their own making.

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    Some good insights into the public's opinion regarding abortion:

    http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

Comments for this article are closed.