Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

[Stoked]

Abortion is one of those hard difficult issues that will never be fully agreed on.

Choice and life are both hugely important. For me personally I’m not a fan of abortion. But it should be legal, up to a point at least. I do believe that an unborn child is a life. But a woman’s right to choose is also important. The closest I can get to rreconciling those to is allow it up to 20 weeks with the obvious exceptions like life endangerment for abortions after that.

Isn’t it at 26 weeks that that a child can survive outside the womb?

 

[Zombie]

The plot thickens

 

[Harambe]

Abortion is one of those hard difficult issues that will never be fully agreed on.

Choice and life are both hugely important. For me personally I’m not a fan of abortion. But it should be legal, up to a point at least. I do believe that an unborn child is a life. But a woman’s right to choose is also important. The closest I can get to rreconciling those to is allow it up to 20 weeks with the obvious exceptions like life endangerment for abortions after that.

Isn’t it at 26 weeks that that a child can survive outside the womb?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Classification

24.5 weeks since last menstruation provides 50/50 odds. Give or take two weeks?

 

[fishonjazz]

Abortion is one of those hard difficult issues that will never be fully agreed on.

Choice and life are both hugely important. For me personally I’m not a fan of abortion. But it should be legal, up to a point at least. I do believe that an unborn child is a life. But a woman’s right to choose is also important. The closest I can get to rreconciling those to is allow it up to 20 weeks with the obvious exceptions like life endangerment for abortions after that.

Isn’t it at 26 weeks that that a child can survive outside the womb?

Good post. Pretty much how I see it too. (I'm probably a little more on the pro choice side than you but we are in the same ballpark)

 

[Zombie]

To anyone else wondering, like Trump, why women don't immediately report their assault-

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=#whyididntreport&src=typeahead_click

 

[Deleted member 365]

And find me a single anti life congressperson who supports limiting abortion in any way. It's pretty clear they just want to kill more babies.

But There already are limits in place and I can’t find a democrat who’s campaigning on eliminating all limits or procedures when it comes to getting an abortion. I’m fine with the limits we have today. But that’s not what’s happening. Republicans are shutting down abortion clinics, attacking planned parenthood, helping spread disinformation about this issue (remember how PP was supposedly encouraging people to get abortions and then chopping up aborted fetuses and making money), are promoting the absurd abstinence only nonsense, making it harder to get contraception, and are opening campaigning on making it illegal again.

your most prominent republicans are campaigning on overturning Roe v Wade. The president even campaigned on re-criminalizing abortion. Watch here:



Let’s please not call both sides “equally at fault” here.

Repubs have been on the wrong side of history since the 1960s on social issues and what we’re seeing is a backlash. They’re trying to “make America great again” by rolling back the advancements that the LGBT community, women, and minorities have made since the progressive era. Democrats merely trying to maintain a gay couple’s right to obtain service at a bakery or a woman’s right to get an abortion if the birth would cause “undue burden” on her isn’t the same as what republicans are doing today. Democrats are defending hard fought civil rights for minorities isn’t newrly the same as republicans blocking Garland and now scrambling to confirm Kavanaugh so they can roll back the past century.

Anyone arguing otherwise isn’t being intellectually honest.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

First of all let me be clear that I think it's likely Ford is telling the truth. I'm not sure what percentage I think it is, but maybe 90%? But that being said, I do think there's a chance that she is mistaken, and I do think there's a chance that she is lying. Mistaken, because people's memories are not always reliable, even about something this traumatic. Lying, because some people feel so strongly about the abortion and maybe some of his other positions that they would do radical things to sabotage his nomination. Either one could explain her calling for an FBI investigation. In the mistaken case, because she really believes what she's saying. In the lying case, because she's just trying to stall for time. Or thinks that calling for an investigation will help sow doubt on Kavenaugh with little risk of permanent negative ramifications on herself, at least when compared to the greater good (in her mind, in this scenario) that she is serving.

This is an excellent post. I couldn't put percentages on those three different possibilities, but I think any of them could be true. It could also be true that Kavenaugh is mis-remembering. He might have done exactly what she said, but no longer has any recollection of it at all (so he's not lying, but his version of events is incorrect). I don't think we will ever know which one of those options is what actually happened here.

I graduated from high school the same year that Kavenaugh did. If someone were to interview me today about a party back then I could tell them about events that I recall in general, and about different people who I had various impressions of at the time. I can recall some who I'd be proud to support as future supreme court justices and some who I would be appalled by... but I couldn't possibly have known the way that some people were going to grow, or that other people were going to whither. Thirty-five years is a long, long time. Are we really okay with a world where a mistake in high-school (or even the accusation of a mistake) is sufficient to derail a career? Is our goal to drive everyone with even a shred of conscience away from public service so that only the narcissists are left? (We're already doing a pretty good job of that, BTW.)

I think it's pretty obvious that this whole thing isn't really about that night at all. It's about people who believe this judge is aligned with their values, and people who believe this judge is not aligned with their values. If he had been nominated by a Democrat, and was positioned to get the votes he needed via a Democratic Congress, I have a feeling that the majority of the people who feel strongly about this situation would still feel just as strongly, only they would be supporting the opposite side of the argument that they are right now.

 

[Zombie]

Are we really okay with a world where a mistake in high-school (or even the accusation of a mistake) is sufficient to derail a career?

I would actually love to live in a world where young men have to think twice about the repercussions of sexual assault. This is an especially weird complaint to make because he hasn't had to face any consequences for his actions, up to this point. If not getting a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is the worst punishment he's going to face, I'm not going to shed too many tears.

Is our goal to drive everyone with even a shred of conscience away from public service so that only the narcissists are left? (We're already doing a pretty good job of that, BTW.)

I'm not sure how not appointing a guy who sexually assaulted someone is going to drive away people with a conscience. Kind of feels like it would be doing the opposite.

I think it's pretty obvious that this whole thing isn't really about that night at all. It's about people who believe this judge is aligned with their values, and people who believe this judge is not aligned with their values.

I think it's pretty obvious that both things can be true. People can have serious misgivings about his judicial opinions and believe he shouldn't be sat because he sexually assaulted a person. That doesn't mean their concern is in bad faith.

If he had been nominated by a Democrat, and was positioned to get the votes he needed via a Democratic Congress, I have a feeling that the majority of the people who feel strongly about this situation would still feel just as strongly, only they would be supporting the opposite side of the argument that they are right now.

Yeah that must be why Al Franken is still in the Senate. I mean guys, it was within our lifetimes that a Supreme Court nominee withdrew because he smoked pot one time. The world didn't end, and he moved on. Why the hell are we so damn determined to lower the bar for Brett ****ing Kavenaugh??

 

[Deleted member 365]

The disinformation being spread by Fox News is so disgusting.

 

[Deleted member 365]

And this is why 2/3 assaults go unreported

 

[Deleted member 365]

I would actually love to live in a world where young men have to think twice about the repercussions of sexual assault. This is an especially weird complaint to make because he hasn't had to face any consequences for his actions, up to this point. If not getting a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is the worst punishment he's going to face, I'm not going to shed too many tears.


I'm not sure how not appointing a guy who sexually assaulted someone is going to drive away people with a conscience. Kind of feels like it would be doing the opposite.



I think it's pretty obvious that both things can be true. People can have serious misgivings about his judicial opinions and believe he shouldn't be sat because he sexually assaulted a person. That doesn't mean their concern is in bad faith.



Yeah that must be why Al Franken is still in the Senate. I mean guys, it was within our lifetimes that a Supreme Court nominee withdrew because he smoked pot one time. The world didn't end, and he moved on. Why the hell are we so damn determined to lower the bar for Brett ****ing Kavenaugh??

Great post.

 

[Zombie]

And this is why 2/3 assaults go unreported

The disinformation being spread by Fox News is so disgusting.

Clearly the White House is going with the kitchen sink defense. It didn't happen because she took too long to report it, also it did happen, but it was actually this other guy who did it.

Something else that's super fishy is this Ed Whelan guy named the fourth individual who was supposedly present (to this thing that never happened, mind) in his insane Twitter thread. That woman had not been named publicly. How did he know who she was?

Oh, and he was caught out looking at Dr Fords LinkedIn profile before she herself had come out publically, last Sunday.

I think it's high time for this whole circus to come to an end.