Another problem with Kavanaugh

[sathari]

Pursuant to rydra_wong's last post, for anyone who understandably finds it uncomfortable to talk about sexual assault with Republican senators' office staffers (or indeed Republicans and conservatives generally, or anyone in general), former Senator Russ Feingold, who served on the Judiciary Committee during Kavanaugh's confirmation to his present position, has laid out the, AHEM, discrepancies between Kavanaugh's testimony then and information that's come out in the current proceedings and the extent to which that's an issue..

(I suspect I'm not alone in wanting Mr. Feingold to make the rounds of the news shows with this.)

Comments

[sathari]

Yeah, I had gotten the impression that it was his views on the exemption of sitting Presidents from, um, legal accountability, that had gotten him shortlisted. And, yeah, the sheer gall of a Ken Starr associate counsel taking that position after the fact reeks of "we used this weapon on you and now we're going to disarm it before you can return the favor."

[kore]

the sheer gall of a Ken Starr associate counsel taking that position after the fact reeks of "we used this weapon on you and now we're going to disarm it before you can return the favor."

That is really the current Republican party all over. The whole thing with "we held open the Supreme Court seat for over a year and were prepared to do it for Hillary's entire term....NO, WE MUST VOTE ON THIS DUDE BY FRIDAY!" is just....idefk, it would be amazing in its craven horribleness if six equally horribly craven things hadn't happened before breakfast.

[sathari]

Yes, exactly! And it's not just with the Supreme Court seat, it's their attitude toward immigration as well--- Stephen Miller's uncle wrote an op-ed for Politico awhile back making the point that their family would not have been eligible to immigrate to the US under the guidelines his [insert pejorative of your choice here] nephew is pushing. (And for that matter their attitude toward reproductive freedom vs. their attitude toward social services for people once they're born, to say nothing of maternal health care... I canNOT with this.)

[kore]

Yeah, didn't Stephen Miller's RABBI publicly shame him about his horrible xenophobic racist views? Not that Miller probably cared, but omg, what a moment.

Yeah, they don't really care about "babies" or even children (especially brown ones)or mothers (especially brown ones), it's all about controlling the lives of half the population based on some prehistoric "religious" view of the Rights of Man, and if women ever start to try to declare our autonomy somehow it's this huge Threat. I mean, the news media is going on and on about "poor white men, they feel so threatened by their great losses!" and I'm like yeah but what are they losing? Whose backs was it built on? arrrrrrrrrgh.

[sathari]

eah, didn't Stephen Miller's RABBI publicly shame him about his horrible xenophobic racist views?

Yes, yes, THAT HAPPENED. ARRRRRgh.

the news media is going on and on about "poor white men, they feel so threatened by their great losses!" and I'm like yeah but what are they losing? Whose backs was it built on? arrrrrrrrrgh.

This. THIIIIIIIIIIS. They are losing the "right" to take up all the oxygen in every room they are in and make literally everyone else take them (and all too often their damn genitals) into account all the time everywhere and calculate around them like an obstacle course and think about them ALL THE DAMN TIME while they are annoyed and affronted if they are ever made to notice any of the rest of us at all ever. Oh, noes, they might actually have to care about the feelings of people not them to even a fraction of the extent that all of the rest of us have to think about them all the time! Here, I've got an entire symphonic orchestra in miniature playing the saddest of dirges just for them.

[rydra_wong]

And, yeah, the sheer gall of a Ken Starr associate counsel taking that position after the fact reeks of "we used this weapon on you and now we're going to disarm it before you can return the favor."

With bonus points for his views on US v. Nixon. So he's maintaining that Nixon and Trump should be exempt from investigation and accountability, Bill Clinton not. It's a double switch-back!

[kore]

ARGH IT'S LIKE HE GIVES HYPOCRISY A BAD NAME.

[sathari]

... yeah, that is... SPECIAL. Republicans get one set of rules for their conduct, everyone else gets another crueler one. Never mind the whole "created equal and endowed... with certain inalienable rights" business in one of the US's founding documents.