It wasn’t entirely clear exactly what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was trying to accomplish …
Well, that’s O.K. It wasn’t entirely clear to Lindsey, either.
Kavanaugh is a “lock” to strip poorer women of their right to abortion in, at a minimum, Red states. (Those with money can travel to get safe abortions). Graham knows it. Kavanaugh knows it. Collins and Murkowski know it. Everyone knows it.
Not only that, but he literally seems to be attacking the very concept of a judicial branch with the power of judicial review because it means the SCOTUS gets to decide what the law means and is, which of course is like a red-carded soccer player complaining “why do we even needs refs anyway?”
So, is Graham arguing that we should just get rid of the Supreme Court?? I don’t personally give a damn what Lindsay Graham or Brett Kavanaugh personally think about abortion; neither one of them is likely to undergo such a procedure any time, and their “opinions” are really moot. It’s really simple; this decision is one for a woman and her physician to discuss and it’s the woman’s right to have one, period. This should be “settled law.” I suffered through some of the hearing last night, and it was just disheartening to watch the candidate fail to answer yes or no questions about his personal opinions and continually quote “precedent” back to the Senators. He has been well-coached.
Graham has a keen interest in most things that will never effect him. As a submissive with a unquenchable thirst for even the slightest modicum of power and control, it comes naturally to him.
The only thing Miss Lindsay has a keen interest in that directly effects him is the banning of plastic straws.
He uses lawyerly stuff like “precedent”, because “none of your God damned business” doesn’t register well with the focus groups…
And I wouldn’t trust either one of them to take their role in this seriously. They’ve proven time and again they are as craven as their male Republican counter-parts.
Does he sense that things are slipping away, or has he lost his supplier?
I wonder how some of those folks would respond to a proposal modeled on the Mann Act – that is, making it a federal crime to transport someone across state lines for purposes of getting an abortion that would be illegal in the state of origin?
I know there are insurmountable legal difficulties with such a proposal, but it’s an interesting thought experiment. I’m very tired of the “One law for the common man, another for the king” way of doing things.
Kavanagh brags about hiring women as his clerks, etc. Why not ask him what are those women’s views on abortion. It might be interesting.
He’s interested in whatever he’s been instructed to question.
Yes, and I bet 5 Justices can be found that want to start stuffing people back into closets, too.
obsequious: adjective: marked by or exhibiting a fawning attentiveness
Lindsey is making it a bit more difficult for Collins and Murkowski to vote yes on Kavanaugh. I hope it makes them squirm.
They already did that for minors. So the transition to adult women wouldn’t be so hard. The law would no doubt be written in terms of the fetus, which would be granted personhood for this purpose but no others.
In the opposite of Soviet show trials. Graham repeatedly provided potential grounds for the overturning of Roe v Wade. Kavanaugh refused to confess that he agreed with Graham so he must be innocent. Reverse strawman.
Lindsey… “It’s like SCOTUS judges think they are sooo special that they can decide what a law really means! Like they alone are the highest authority in the land on laws! The gall of them!!”
If they can get the confirmation vote in before Election Day, they can probably count on at least 2 Democratic yes votes to offset Collins and Murkowski, who i’m not convinced will vote no anyway.
Lindsay was incoherent. Even Kavanaugh was reluctant to join him on his little meander through the forest.