3 ups, 1y,
Not "a victim". A WOMAN. Men do NOT get the same treatment for unsubstantiated claims. This "circus" is just a tiny insight into what happens in family court every day, when it's a man vs. a woman. Our gynocentric, feminazi society is an abomination.
1 up, 1y,
If they would have voted without the hearings the vote would have not been any different. They should save the time, money and stress and just vote.
1 up, 1y
Actually, if they had discussed genuine objections to him as a Justice, they could have legitimately rejected him. Instead they made it about whether or not he may have attempted to strip a girl 30 years ago (they hadn't even gotten to an actual **pe). With only a unreliable 30 year old memory as evidence (that doesn't even hold up very well as evidence for public oppinion)..
Since the hearing was being treated as a trial, they had no choice but to confirm him/find him not guilty.
(For those arguing "it wasn't a trial, it was a job interview" name one job that would take a 30 year old accusation from before you were even legally an adult into account, especially when it is obvious the only reason that accusation was brought out, was to prevent you from getting the job in the first place. In many situations, that might even be legally actionable as slander, because it's clear intention is to cause damage to the individual, not to seek legal justice)
0 ups, 1y
It’s like a bad episode of the Jardashian show.
Show More Comments
Caption this Meme
I'M NOT HAPPY OR UNHAPPY THAT KAVANAUGH WAS AS APPOINTED; I AM UNHAPPY ABOUT THE CIRCUS THAT SURROUNDED IT AND HOW UTTERLY ILLOGICAL MANY OF MY "FELLOW AMERICANS" WERE IN RESPONDING TO FEELINGS RATHER THAN FACTS AND THE IDEA THAT THE RULE OF LAW DOESN'T APPLY IF IT MIGHT MAKE THE ALLEGED VICTIM FEEL BAD
hotkeys: D = random, W = upvote, S = downvote, A = back