They’ll come up with something; perhaps find someone who will accuse him of double-dribbling when playing high school basketball or something.
But the real opposition will be about abortion. The Dems now promote three things, in this order: abortion, open borders, homosexual marriage. The most important by far is abortion.
I don’t think the Democrats are too worried about finding a reasonable objection to Kavanaugh. For most of them it is sufficient that he was nominated by Trump and would replace a justice who was reasonably supportive of their most significant issues.
There are only two real questions: how will the questionable Republican senators (Collins, Murkowski) vote, and how will the red state Democrats (IN, ND, MO, WV…) vote. That plus the health of John McCain, who won’t be back to the senate and who won’t retire.
I don’t think there is any likelihood McCaskill will vote for Kavanaugh. She pretends now and then that she isn’t a liberal, but she really is one, and she will not vote for anybody who is arguably prolife.
The red state Dems are in a real predicament. I suspect not a one of them would vote for Kavanaugh if it was safe not to do so, but they may well anger a lot of undecidededs if they oppose him, they are after all in a red state. Which is not to say that voting for him wouldn’t enrage a sizeable portion of their base. Oh darn.
McCaskill’s strategy will be smearing Hawley. That’s the dem way. But her supporters won’t forgive her if she votes for a prolife S.C. justice.
I believe Senators Collins and Murkowski have abortion concerns too. But if they get on board I will bet two or three Democrats will too.
Smearing your political opponent is the American way RR. Actually it’s done in other countries too. Your point not taken.
Some are nastier than others. Some are outright lies.
Yes, I think he will make it. I am starting to wonder if your average liberal American is as freaked out by Kavanaugh as the Democrat Party is; I don’t think necessarily so. Abortion is the big ticket item for the Dems/Dem media team to try to motivate widespread opposition to Kavanaugh, beyond Planned Parenthood advocates and supporters, which leads into the question of popular opinion on Roe v Wade. If you read one article about Roe and polling, this should be it.
How exactly do you envision a government cracking down on abortion? Is every mother going to register with the government when she gets pregnant, and then get interrogated every month until she delivers? Will cops break down the door if she miscarriages? Will the mother and doctor get grilled in court as to whether they know the soul is present at conception, because that establishes intent?
As for gay marriage, what about couples that are closed to children, because that’s immoral and unnatural too. Fines and jail time for couples that don’t have enough children fast enough? Journal on your sex life required to be submitted with tax returns?
Sexuality is not the government’s concern, it is the individual’s concern. They’ll hurt God and the saints by sinning but it’s none of the government’s business.
The government can crack down on abortion by sanctioning, and even imprisoning, those who perform the abortions. That is how it was done before Roe v. Wade, that is how it will happen after Roe v. Wade is overturned.
But pro-abortion leftists can take consolation in knowing that when Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will not make abortion ILlegal in the United States, it will simply put it down to the individual states.
Your middle paragraph makes no sense. It appears you are trying to exaggerate someone’s comments into something that would never happen, simply to justify some type of belief that you did not communicate. I know of no one who wants to fine or imprison couples for not having children fast enough…that’s just scare-mongering.
Agreed, sexuality is not the government’s concern. That being said, I don’t mind a little local government protection to keep people’s unusual sexual behavior out of sight.
That’s just inconsistency of people who are against legal gay marriage. If you want to ban gay marriage, you have to say it’s “unnatural.” Any marriage closed to children is unnatural. As it is now it’s just a religious gripe against gay marriage, and first amendment blocks that.
How do you know this?
Disagree. The definition of marriage has always been between man and woman. Some cultures and religions allowed for multiple women, but still women. There was no need to change the definition of marriage. If homosexual people (or anyone who didnt want to me "married by that definition, lets say a male who thought he was a she wanted to marry a woman who thought she was a he…or something…)wanted the same legal rights they could have had a civil union. But instead leftists had to force their views onto our culture.
What do you mean that any marriage that is closed to children is unnatural?
Because that was the law before Roe, so if Roe is merely overturned the law after Roe will be precisely what it was before Roe.
The key word here being “merely” - a nuance not present in the post of @Boatswain2PA.
It is not clear at all that Roe would be overturned as havng taken 14th amendment rights too far. It may be overturned because it does not take them far enough - that is for not extending fundamental rights to the unborn. That perspective is, after all, part of the pro-life position.
Oh boy!!! Here we go!!!
Your input dvdjs???
See just above your post.
What did states so before 1973?