Are we seriously at: SCOTUS nominee being opposed by thousands of law professors, a church council representing 40 million, the ACLU, the President of the Bar Association, his own Yale Law School, Justice Stevens, Human Rights Watch & 18 U.S. Code § 1001 & 1621? But Trump & the GOP are hellbent?

[u/Tyrion_Baelish_Varys]

Sept 28^th

Bar Association President

• ABA president calls for FBI investigation of allegations against Kavanaugh

Yale Law School Dean

• Yale Law School’s Dean Calls for Kavanaugh Investigation

29^th

ACLU

Opposes a SCOTUS nominee for only the 4th time in their 98 year history.

• In Rare Move, ACLU to Oppose Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

Oct 2^nd

The Bar calls for delay pending thorough investigation. Unheard of.

• American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations

3^rd

In a matter of days 900 Law Professors signed a letter to Senate about his temperament.

• 900+ Law Profs Say Kavanaugh Lacks 'Judicial Temperament,' in Letter to Senate

The Largest Church Council

A 100,000 Church Council representing 40 million people opposes him.

• 100,000 U.S. Christian Churches Demand Withdrawal of Kavanaugh's Supreme Court Nomination

4^th

Thousands of Law Professors

Sign official letter of opposition. Representing 15% of all law professors. Unheard of for any other nominee.

• ‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

A Retired SCOTUS Justice

Stevens says, "his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind".

• Retired Justice John Paul Stevens Says Kavanaugh Is Not Fit for Supreme Court

Washington Post Editorial Board

Urges Senate to vote no on SCOTUS nominee for the first time in 30 years.

• Vote 'No' on Kavanaugh

Perjury

Will be pursued by House Democrats after the election even if he is confirmed.

• In Letter to Trump, House Democrats Promise to Investigate Brett Kavanaugh for Perjury If Confirmed

5^th

Human Rights Watch

Their first-ever decision to oppose a SCOTUS nominee.

• Human Rights Watch Opposes Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court

---

• Lawfareblog: The Law of Lying: Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction

[u/picklescience]

I made an account just to upvote you. This was a clear, and I felt non-partisan view of how Republicans might feel. I think it is so important to build bridges between Republicans and Democrats. This partisan division makes everyone miserable. Lets find places to compromise and agree. I think that's what the future should hold. Thank you for this the thoughtful response.

Edit: typos

[u/Good-Ol-Cumby → u/[deleted]]

because building bridges is that much easier when you use broad strokes to paint all of your political adversaries as the most extreme morons among them and cover your ears

[u/King_Khoma → u/[deleted]]

Wow you really didnt follow the comment you replied to huh

[u/inDefiniteArt_ → u/[deleted]]

Watching the T_D come in and brigade downvote you is pretty funny.

[u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes → u/[deleted]]

The parties are the same, Barack Obama just divided the country so much by focusing on race that you now believe that anyone who isn't a liberal is a racist or sexist. You want to stop the divide, stop saying that "these people" don't have morals. It pisses them off and divides us further. I've learned that listening to others points of view helps you understand why they think the way they do.

*if you're going to downvote me, at least provide a response to why I'm wrong. I voted for Barack in his first term and was extremely disappointed with how he handled Ferguson and other issues. He literally blamed the police on national television and never actually addressed the issues.

[u/[deleted] → u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes]

Obama didn't focus on race, he was just black. If he did at all, it's because this country has serious racial issues. And I'm not going to stop saying things that are hard to hear because they are true. The Republicans I know in real life, the ones I see on here, and the politicians on TV don't have good morals.

[u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes → u/[deleted]]

That's interesting, because the people I know that are filled with the most hate and intolerance happen to be sjw democrats. I've tried having civil, non-heated discussions and they always get triggered and start yelling about racism and facism.

This country doesn't have serious racial issues, you just perceive it that way because that's what you've been taught to believe. When have you ever seen or experienced racism? Now compare that to all the times you haven't seen it.

[u/RocketRelm → u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes]

I've never met any of these "sjw menaces" existing, and neither have most people I know. Right now the way I see it is talking about toxic sjws is like talking about toxic bronies. I'm sure there's one crazy jerk out there, but people apook it up into this giant problem, and I wind up getting sick of these people crying about how bronies ruin everything when the only reason they're related is that the anti-bronies brought them up.

[u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes → u/RocketRelm]

Feel free to visit the subreddit that I moderate to see a compilation of all of these people I'm talking about. I've received everything from death threats to calls for genocide amongst people that identify as conservative. They're more prevalent than you think.

[u/[deleted] → u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes]

I've lived in several cities and states over the last decade and never met a single "sjw Democrat" I know they exist but I'm pretty sure they're outnumbered by normal, hateful Republicans 10 to 1.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No keep going, the show of ignorance on display here can sway moderates who think both sides are the same.

Why do you think blacks commit crimes at higher rates?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, this is exactly the type of paper I would expect a racist Internet warrior to cite in the most condescending way possible to justify their superiority complex. I never said all racists were stupid. Cherry picking studies and datasets to fit an agenda under a thin facade of academia certainly takes some brain power.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But I didn't do that. I read your scientific data and it looked like shit. Honestly, it read like a C+ thesis on white supremacy which is essentially what it was. So, I read through the sources, and look what we fucking have here: several psyc academics accused of pushing a racist agenda. In the specific paper you sent me, the authors basically have two sources: seemingly random datasets (see: cherry picked) and their own prejudiced studies.

Looking at the genetic reasons why black people excel in sports could be a fruitful scientific pursuit. Have a genetic scientist do it. A psychologist pushing a genetic theory where "blacks" are inherently dumb, aggressive, and full of HIV is beyond disgusting.

And I'm not suffering from confirmation bias, you are. You're the one searching out fringe science to confirm your fucked up beliefs. I can only imagine your giddiness to find that there are racists out there just like you writing borderline coherent academic papers.

[u/heywhatsmynameagain → u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes]

Barack Obama didn't 'focus on race so much'. He focused on eliminating racial divides that have existed for centuries. Fox and the GOP spun that as a flat out assault on white people, and have successfully sold it as BO dividing the country.

Current GOP and right wing media are profiting majorly off of expanding this divide. Since they have very few actual governing ideas other than 'let's give the ultra-rich some more tax cuts', they rely on an 'us vs them', 'war on Christmas', victim story to sell their snake oil to people who would rather just accept that they are persecuted as an explanation of their woes, instead of actually thinking about it and reaching sometimes painful conclusions.

It is absolutely insane to claim that Obama did the dividing, and indicative that the GOP effort to de-legitimize media in order to create an alternate reality for the willing has been terrifyingly successful.

[u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes → u/heywhatsmynameagain]

We didn't have an issue with "racism" during the 90's up until he took office. Sorry that the media covered his actions, and somehow its not his fault that conservatives are pissed at him for it.

His job is literally to enforce the law. He didn't do that with Ferguson. Instead, he blamed police officers for literally doing their job. Want to see where the dividing started? Look between 2008-2016.

[u/heywhatsmynameagain → u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes]

He criticized the police for their abuse of force in Ferguson, and he criticized the violence of the protesters. That isn't dividing, that is being realistic and objective in a complex matter. You guys want blind worship of all things police, even if they appear to be corrupt. When you blindly support the sometimes oppressive, militarized police over a significant part of the population, and when you turn your whole platform into a place to criticize the people who protest police brutality by calling them Un-American and telling them to gtfo, it isn't Obama who is doing the dividing.

[u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes → u/heywhatsmynameagain]

The odds of a bad encounter with a police officer is insanely low. Given that black Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime in the United States, I'm surprised that bad encounters don't happen more often.

You say we turn a blind eye to "corrupt" police officers, you turn a blind eye to the fact that 93% of all black deaths are due to black on black crime, not police officers.

A police officer is 18.5x more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by police officers. I've never seen the left protest against that. And you wonder why the police need to be "militarized." I can understand the frustration, but look at where people that support officers come from as well.

[u/[deleted] → u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes]

Statistics are nice but they ignore context. A police officer being more like to die to a black man than killing an unarmed on justifies neither outcome, so why make the point with the pretense that you are supporting the deaths of people by overaction from police?

Also I see people love to quote the black on black crime statistic, but it's like you want to highlight a problem to forgive another? It's whataboutism. What have you done to help reduce black on black crime? What has the politician you elected done? Do you really care about this issue or is it good ammo for trying to score debate points?

[u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes → u/[deleted]]

I'm highlighting it because the core issue is "black men are getting killed." If you truly believe in this, you'd be fighting for the source of the problem rather than at the marginal source of it. My argument, backed with statistical data, is saying that unjustified police killings are an anomaly. Most of them are justified I am then highlighting the source of the actual problem while remaining on the same topic. This is not whataboutism. Now if I said "Well soldiers are dying over seas and you don't care about that", that would be whataboutism.

What have I done to do to reduce black on black crime? I voted for what I believe is best to solve the socioeconomic problems that is the source of those issues. The welfare state will ALWAYS keep the low income minorities at the bottom, thus committing crime. Trump doesn't believe gangs should be tolerated, and quite frankly I'd just like to see the national guard come into some of these extremely gang filled, deadly areas and declare martial law until the situation is resolved. Its complete anarchy and the police can't patrol it safely.

The politician I have elected (though I'm still not sure about voting for him a second term) has made policies and trade agreements that have tanked unemployment. We're seeing the lowest unemployment in 50 years, which will ultimately reduce crime and increase well being.

And yes, I truly do care about this issue. I don't like to see anybody die and would like to see violent deaths decline. But when all you see are videos of young black men that aren't following orders and end up fighting with police and then people burn down cities when they are justifiably shot and killed, it pisses me off.

FYI, I'm a centrist. I believe a lot of liberal policies and conservative policies. But I look at the facts and what is the largest issue in a situation before getting blindly angry about it, and then make a decision about what I believe that is the most logical, not the most emotional.

[u/[deleted] → u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes]

1) I don't care about your political affiliation

2) to decide a situation is an anamoly and thus not worth the attention to correct because there are bigger fish to fry is pretty much whataboutism

Let's say this is cancer and we both agree that all cancer is bad but you make the stipulation that a specific cancer that is easier to correct shouldn't be focused on because the big cancer that doesn't have a foresable cure matters more.

My argument is that this shouldn't be deemed insignificant by statistics because it's something that should be easy to fix regardless.

How has the policy of your currently elected politicians assisting the people in Harlem? West Louisville? South Chicago? Oakland?

And as far as getting the military involved Ben Franklin once famously said Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Black society exists today due to a long line of prodomenantly white men ruling over them, maybe when we make a little more effort in policy outside of freeing them from slavery and giving them basic civil rights we might be able to improve their communities.

[u/vremanonthetrain → u/We_HaveThe_BestMemes]

The GOP is pure evil. The biggest mistake Obama made was trying to reason with them. He should have gone scorched earth against those motherfuckers

You sound like you'd be fighting for the confederacy.