Anita Hill 2.0

too larry

too larry

Well-Known Member
Sadly I'm afraid the title to this thread gets it right. It will be Anita Hill 2.0. For the younger folks here, the United States Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52–48, after Hill had accused him of sexual harassment. There was a good deal of evidence to support her accusations.

The times have changed. Me Too is sweeping the nation. Right? But after sitting on a nominee for over a year, do you really think they will care about public opinion? Even if the vote doesn't happen until after the midterms, all the GOP will toe the line and vote for him.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
blaze 57 said:
Good grief! this poor women accuser. Someone grabbed her booby 40 yrs ago and I'm amazed she was able to function in society with all that weight hanging around her neck all these yrs. Gee whizzer!
Click to expand...
She was actually headed to the bathroom, grabbed by two men, pinned down as Brett kavanaugh tried to rip her clothes off, and her mouth covered to keep anyone from hearing her screams

Fucking rapist
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
AlexJones4eva said:
I guess it comes down to credibility. Do we trust the federal Judge that is about to become a supreme court justice. Or do we trust the college professor that waited 35 years and can't remember where it happened but does remember she only had 1 beer. pretty tough choice to be made here.
Click to expand...
Do we trust the guy who perjured himself 5 times, or the woman who passed a polygraph and has no reason to lie
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
AlexJones4eva said:
She waited decades to tell anybody. There isn't any evidence.
Click to expand...
Not for a conviction

Her testimony is plenty to make Republicans get all sweaty palmed about losing even more votes. This isn't a trial. It's a political contest over nominating a right winger to the SCOTUS. At every turn Republicans have been on the wrong side of the me too movement. They can't get it right. The best move would have been to yank Kavity and put up another one of their anti-abortion judges. But they can't get it right.

To reiterate:

She came out about the assault a couple of times beforehand. Once to her husband during a couples counseling session and another time to some friends. Long before Kavity was nominated to the SCOTUS. So, no. She's not to be dismissed. Her statements today are validated by her earlier statements.
 
Last edited:
rkymtnman

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Not for a conviction

Her testimony is plenty to make Republicans get all sweaty palmed about losing even more votes. This isn't a trial. It's a political contest over nominating a right winger to the SCOTUS. At every turn Republicans have been on the wrong side of the me too movement. They can't get it right. The best move would have been to yank Kavity and put up another one of their anti-abortion judges. But they can't get it right.

To reiterate:

She came out about the assault a couple of times beforehand. Once to her husband during a couples counseling session and another time to some friends. Long before Kavity was nominated to the SCOTUS. So, no. She's not to be dismissed. Her statements today are validate by her earlier statements.
Click to expand...
and like UB's therad: who keeps a list handy of 65 girls from high school that will say that they were a gentle lover and not at all a rapist?
 
too larry

too larry

Well-Known Member
It would be nice if 45 came to be known as the present day John Tayler.

From wiki wiki

"John Tyler
John Tyler experienced extreme difficulty in obtaining approval of his nominees due to his lack of political support in the Senate. . . . .

. . . . . . John C. Spencer was nominated on January 9, 1844, and his nomination was defeated by a vote of 21–26 on January 31, 1844. Reuben H. Walworth was nominated on March 13, 1844, and a resolution to table the nomination passed on a 27–20 vote on June 15, 1844. The nomination was withdrawn from the Senate on June 17, 1844. Edward King was nominated on June 5, 1844. A resolution to table the nomination passed by a vote of 29–18 on June 15, 1844. No other action was taken on this nomination.[11]

The same day that Walworth's nomination was withdrawn, Spencer was re-submitted, but there is no record of debate and a letter from the President withdrawing the nomination was received on the same day. Walworth was then re-nominated later that same day, but the motion to act on the nomination in the Senate was objected to, and no further action was taken.[11]

Walworth and King were re-nominated on December 10, 1844, but both nominations were tabled on January 21, 1845. Walworth's nomination was withdrawn on February 6, 1845, and King's two days later. John M. Read was nominated on February 8, 1845, and there was a motion to consider the nomination in the Senate on January 21, 1845, but the motion was unsuccessful and no other action was taken.[11] On February 14, 1845, the Senate voted to confirm Samuel Nelson.[6]"
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Interesting post on JT nominations, history may repeat itself. I can see this allegation stalling out the process and pushing past midterms. That will add even more intrigue to midterms.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
too larry said:
It would be nice if 45 came to be known as the present day John Tayler.

From wiki wiki

"John Tyler
John Tyler experienced extreme difficulty in obtaining approval of his nominees due to his lack of political support in the Senate. . . . .

. . . . . . John C. Spencer was nominated on January 9, 1844, and his nomination was defeated by a vote of 21–26 on January 31, 1844. Reuben H. Walworth was nominated on March 13, 1844, and a resolution to table the nomination passed on a 27–20 vote on June 15, 1844. The nomination was withdrawn from the Senate on June 17, 1844. Edward King was nominated on June 5, 1844. A resolution to table the nomination passed by a vote of 29–18 on June 15, 1844. No other action was taken on this nomination.[11]

The same day that Walworth's nomination was withdrawn, Spencer was re-submitted, but there is no record of debate and a letter from the President withdrawing the nomination was received on the same day. Walworth was then re-nominated later that same day, but the motion to act on the nomination in the Senate was objected to, and no further action was taken.[11]

Walworth and King were re-nominated on December 10, 1844, but both nominations were tabled on January 21, 1845. Walworth's nomination was withdrawn on February 6, 1845, and King's two days later. John M. Read was nominated on February 8, 1845, and there was a motion to consider the nomination in the Senate on January 21, 1845, but the motion was unsuccessful and no other action was taken.[11] On February 14, 1845, the Senate voted to confirm Samuel Nelson.[6]"
Click to expand...

at least he got to nomimate..banana republic republicans.

i hope they'll still allow women folk to drive..
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Interesting post on JT nominations, history may repeat itself. I can see this allegation stalling out the process and pushing past midterms. That will add even more intrigue to midterms.
Click to expand...
Intrigue is a nice euphemism for the danger you Nazis have put our nation in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top