Have the Kavanaugh confirmations on in the background

[sk8knight]

Regarding SCOTUS, where exactly is the back and forth you're talking about? Bork, Thomas, Miers were the only ones I can recall who received poor treatment and it all came from the left. Other than Garland, which democrat-nominated SCOTUS justice was turned away or the subject of character assassination?

In 1968, President Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, a known liberal to succeed Warren on the Supreme Court as chief justice. Republicans and Southern Democrats, using a thin justification of the justice committing the offense of receiving $15k to run some seminars at a local university, filibustered for 4 days and caused Johnson to rescind the nomination (side note: this was before the Biden rule).

So, the precedence for this lies with Republicans and Southern Dems.

 

[Crazyhole]

In 1968, President Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, a known liberal to succeed Warren on the Supreme Court as chief justice. Republicans and Southern Democrats, using a thin justification of the justice committing the offense of receiving $15k to run some seminars at a local university, filibustered for 4 days and caused Johnson to rescind the nomination (side note: this was before the Biden rule).

So, the precedence for this lies with Republicans and Southern Dems.

So 30 years pass between the 1st and 2nd. Then a few months between 2nd and 3rd. Then a couple of years before the attempted character assassination of Thomas. It took 26 more years before anything remotely close happened like that again which was no way close to the level of what we saw in the 80s or in 2018. That doesnt sound like back-and-forth to me.

 

[The Branch]

So 30 years pass between the 1st and 2nd. Then a few months between 2nd and 3rd. Then a couple of years before the attempted character assassination of Thomas. It took 26 more years before anything remotely close happened like that again which was no way close to the level of what we saw in the 80s or in 2018. That doesnt sound like back-and-forth to me.

It's called a reach. It's how the Democrats search the archives back as far as they can see in order to blame something they did on the Republicans.

 

[sk8knight]

Democrats just submitted 1,278 questions to Kavanaugh. That’s more than all of the previous Supreme Court justices combined. For someone who is probably more qualified than a good number of the previous justices combined.

 

[DaShuckster]

Democrats just submitted 1,278 questions to Kavanaugh. That’s more than all of the previous Supreme Court justices combined. For someone who is probably more qualified than a good number of the previous justices combined.

Poooooooor baby!

At least Kavanaugh GOT questions to answer! Merritt Garland's qualifications for the High Court received similar praise when he was nominated. And last week Ted Cruz noted that Kavanaugh and Merritt Garland have strikingly similar records.

But its those Democrats who are the ones being obstructionists, right?

 

[The Branch]

Poooooooor baby!

At least Kavanaugh GOT questions to answer! Merritt Garland's qualifications for the High Court received similar praise when he was nominated. And last week Ted Cruz noted that Kavanaugh and Merritt Garland have strikingly similar records.

But its those Democrats who are the ones being obstructionists, right?

I don't think anybody has ever doubted Merrick Garland's credentials. Why you guys keep bringing it up is beyond me. Just wasting time, I guess.

Trump is in his 2nd year in office. The Democrats are very obviously trying to block a well qualified candidate until the midterms ... in the hopes they take over ... so they can prolong it even more.

You know as well as I do they don't give two hoots about those questions ... and they are playing politics in a way only they can do.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Poooooooor baby!

At least Kavanaugh GOT questions to answer! Merritt Garland's qualifications for the High Court received similar praise when he was nominated. And last week Ted Cruz noted that Kavanaugh and Merritt Garland have strikingly similar records.

But its those Democrats who are the ones being obstructionists, right?

Yes, they are. Let's be clear- people still crying about Garland are the babies here. Every single person in America knew the stakes in the 2016 election and given the 2 massively different choices, and eventual SC nominee choices, it was totally and utterly fair to not vote on Garland and let the voters decide via Presidential preference. Afterall, we are talking about the Joe Biden rule.

If HRC had won then her pick, assuming it's not a crackpot, would be EASILY confirmed with large numbers of R's voting to confirm. Just as large number of R's confirmed Obama's 2 LIBERAL justices.

This is not even about Garland's seat since that was "technically" occupied by Gorsuch. This is simply Democrats pandering to their extremist base and throwing a hissy fit, because they think it's a good election tool to scream and yell about how Justice Kavanaugh would literally lead to millions of people dying. ()

They can bitch, whine, and try to stall Kavanuagh's vote all they want but he'll be seated and it's exactly what the American people voted for in 2016.

 

[sk8knight]

Ginsberg has an opinion on the hearings: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...der-ginsubrg-supreme-court-hearing/index.html

 

[BG_Knightmare]

Lets clear the air on this, McConnell nuked the rule for SC judge nominations last year, Reid started it with the lower courts 5 years ago but the Dems left the SC nomination rules alone. I bring this up because people here are still getting this essential fact wrong.

Kennedy, whose seat would be replaced by Kavanaugh is a moderate conservative swing vote, Kavanaugh is notably further right than he is. This nomination will further polarize the SC with another ideologue, Gorsch was also a hard right candidate, but because he would be replacing another hard right judge (Scalia) the balance of the SCOTUS was maintained.

This nomination will tip the scales of the SC with a lifelong judge in his early 50s who holds hard right views and will further polarize the SC for at least a generation. Kavanaugh is too partisan (to fill the seat being vacated) I would much rather see a moderate voice like Garland's filling that seat. Kavanaugh is too far right to not vote along party lines. And regardless of your political viewpoints you should be cautious of a nominee to the SC who possibly has committed perjury in regards to stolen opposition party documents. On this basis alone I think more vetting is needed to figure out all the facts about what happened there and what his involvement with it was.

Purely speculation, Biden maybe didn't like Garland as a nominee because he was a moderate conservative and not liberal enough. This I think was intentional because Obama recognized the balance of the SC given Scalia was hard right wanted to nominate someone who would maintain some balance in the SC with a candidate like Garland. The Republican majority wouldn't have any of it, blocked it regardless of qualification and had HRC won probably would've continued blocking appointments forcing the Dems to change the rules again so they could scream foul again and champion themselves as the good guys.

 

[fried-chicken]

https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/387413/either-sen-collins-votes-no-on-kavanaugh-or-we-fund-her-future-opponent/updates/2901?source_code=campaign-update-link-2901&ref_code=campaign-updat

The goal for this crowd funded account is to match the amount of cash Collins has on hand for her 2020 opponent.

 

[sk8knight]

Lets clear the air on this, McConnell nuked the rule for SC judge nominations last year, Reid started it with the lower courts 5 years ago but the Dems left the SC nomination rules alone. I bring this up because people here are still getting this essential fact wrong.

Kennedy, whose seat would be replaced by Kavanaugh is a moderate conservative swing vote, Kavanaugh is notably further right than he is. This nomination will further polarize the SC with another ideologue, Gorsch was also a hard right candidate, but because he would be replacing another hard right judge (Scalia) the balance of the SCOTUS was maintained.

This nomination will tip the scales of the SC with a lifelong judge in his early 50s who holds hard right views and will further polarize the SC for at least a generation. Kavanaugh is too partisan (to fill the seat being vacated) I would much rather see a moderate voice like Garland's filling that seat. Kavanaugh is too far right to not vote along party lines. And regardless of your political viewpoints you should be cautious of a nominee to the SC who possibly has committed perjury in regards to stolen opposition party documents. On this basis alone I think more vetting is needed to figure out all the facts about what happened there and what his involvement with it was.

Purely speculation, Biden maybe didn't like Garland as a nominee because he was a moderate conservative and not liberal enough. This I think was intentional because Obama recognized the balance of the SC given Scalia was hard right wanted to nominate someone who would maintain some balance in the SC with a candidate like Garland. The Republican majority wouldn't have any of it, blocked it regardless of qualification and had HRC won probably would've continued blocking appointments forcing the Dems to change the rules again so they could scream foul again and champion themselves as the good guys.

Stop imputing some moral value to Reid’s lack of action. If an Obama-appointee for SC would’ve been come to the Senate, Reid would’ve used whatever procedure he could to ensure that nominee was confirmed.

What in Kavanaugh’s judicial record makes you think he is too far right?

 

[BG_Knightmare]

Stop imputing some moral value to Reid’s lack of action. If an Obama-appointee for SC would’ve been come to the Senate, Reid would’ve used whatever procedure he could to ensure that nominee was confirmed.

What in Kavanaugh’s judicial record makes you think he is too far right?

And to your first point, I'm merely stating the facts of what happened, the facts are on record and they matter.

 

[sk8knight]

You’re really going to reference Sheldon Whitehouse for your support? He did nothing but throw out red herrings, conspiracy theories, and your liberal incorrect attack angle of the day in order to try to get some sound bite.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...-kavanaugh-hearings-day-2-sheldon-whitehouse/

 

[DaShuckster]

The Democrats are very obviously trying to block a well qualified candidate until the midterms ... in the hopes they take over ... so they can prolong it even more.

OMIGOD, blocking a well-qualified candidate until after the elections???!?!?! THOSE DEMOCRAT BASTERDS!!!!

 

[UCFKnight85]

You’re really going to reference Sheldon Whitehouse for your support? He did nothing but throw out red herrings, conspiracy theories, and your liberal incorrect attack angle of the day in order to try to get some sound bite.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...-kavanaugh-hearings-day-2-sheldon-whitehouse/

It's absolutely incredible to see what lengths these liberals will go to in order to lie and drum up any pathetic "GOTCHA" to sink Kavanuagh, even while knowing 100% these idiots will fail.

Kavanaugh is an "extreme partisan" that just happens to be backed and supported by every single person he's ever worked with, including both conservatives and liberals within the judiciary and legal world.

And LOL at lefties now trying to harass and bribe Susan Collins. Fuking pathetic.

 

[The Branch]

Lets clear the air on this, McConnell nuked the rule for SC judge nominations last year, Reid started it with the lower courts 5 years ago but the Dems left the SC nomination rules alone. I bring this up because people here are still getting this essential fact wrong.

Kennedy, whose seat would be replaced by Kavanaugh is a moderate conservative swing vote, Kavanaugh is notably further right than he is. This nomination will further polarize the SC with another ideologue, Gorsch was also a hard right candidate, but because he would be replacing another hard right judge (Scalia) the balance of the SCOTUS was maintained.

This nomination will tip the scales of the SC with a lifelong judge in his early 50s who holds hard right views and will further polarize the SC for at least a generation. Kavanaugh is too partisan (to fill the seat being vacated) I would much rather see a moderate voice like Garland's filling that seat. Kavanaugh is too far right to not vote along party lines. And regardless of your political viewpoints you should be cautious of a nominee to the SC who possibly has committed perjury in regards to stolen opposition party documents. On this basis alone I think more vetting is needed to figure out all the facts about what happened there and what his involvement with it was.

Purely speculation, Biden maybe didn't like Garland as a nominee because he was a moderate conservative and not liberal enough. This I think was intentional because Obama recognized the balance of the SC given Scalia was hard right wanted to nominate someone who would maintain some balance in the SC with a candidate like Garland. The Republican majority wouldn't have any of it, blocked it regardless of qualification and had HRC won probably would've continued blocking appointments forcing the Dems to change the rules again so they could scream foul again and champion themselves as the good guys.

Your argument is nonsense ...

You can't parcel out federal judges from SC just to make your argument.

Replacing a hard right guy (Scalia) with a slightly left guy (Garland) does the same thing you are against. Significantly shifts the court. Just because one goes YOUR way and the other goes AGAINST your way doesn't make it right.

Kavanaugh doesn't need more vetting. If you haven't' figured out the Democrats are launching scud missiles just to see what hits a target, then there is no help for you. At least admit it is all politics now.

Biden is your worst enemy on the Garland issue. It was Biden that stood in front of the Senate and said there was NO WAY they would let a SC nominee go through on Bush's last year in office. It was Biden who was the current sitting VP when this all happened. So the VP of the USA was against his own President on the Garland issue. Not a good look.

 

[BG_Knightmare]

You’re really going to reference Sheldon Whitehouse for your support? He did nothing but throw out red herrings, conspiracy theories, and your liberal incorrect attack angle of the day in order to try to get some sound bite.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...-kavanaugh-hearings-day-2-sheldon-whitehouse/

So you won't argue the substance of the article (Kavanaughs decisions and rulings) and instead discredit the source?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Your argument is nonsense ...

You can't parcel out federal judges from SC just to make your argument.

Replacing a hard right guy (Scalia) with a slightly left guy (Garland) does the same thing you are against. Significantly shifts the court. Just because one goes YOUR way and the other goes AGAINST your way doesn't make it right.

Kavanaugh doesn't need more vetting. If you haven't' figured out the Democrats are launching scud missiles just to see what hits a target, then there is no help for you. At least admit it is all politics now.

Biden is your worst enemy on the Garland issue. It was Biden that stood in front of the Senate and said there was NO WAY they would let a SC nominee go through on Bush's last year in office. It was Biden who was the current sitting VP when this all happened. So the VP of the USA was against his own President on the Garland issue. Not a good look.

This guy BG apparently doesn't understand that nuking the filibuster for the sake of the lower courts has a bigger impact on the partisan makeup of our judicial system than the Supreme Court. The overwhelming majority of cases never make it beyond the lower circuit court system to the SC.

Therefore Reid nuking the filibuster for the lower courts were a far, far more egregious act than McC nuking it for the SC. And following Reid's lead.

 

[The Branch]

So you won't argue the substance of the article (Kavanaughs decisions and rulings) and instead discredit the source?

Are you actually trying to make a point that Trump appointed a conservative supreme court justice? I think we all agree on that.

 

[BG_Knightmare]

Your argument is nonsense ...

You can't parcel out federal judges from SC just to make your argument.

Replacing a hard right guy (Scalia) with a slightly left guy (Garland) does the same thing you are against. Significantly shifts the court. Just because one goes YOUR way and the other goes AGAINST your way doesn't make it right.

Kavanaugh doesn't need more vetting. If you haven't' figured out the Democrats are launching scud missiles just to see what hits a target, then there is no help for you. At least admit it is all politics now.

Biden is your worst enemy on the Garland issue. It was Biden that stood in front of the Senate and said there was NO WAY they would let a SC nominee go through on Bush's last year in office. It was Biden who was the current sitting VP when this all happened. So the VP of the USA was against his own President on the Garland issue. Not a good look.

I'll admit, I'm ignorant to Biden's role in previous SC nominee blockage I'll need more clarification on that. But in reality you there's no way to know when an SC judge will vacate their seat unless they announce it. Scalia's death just happened to be in Obama's last year.

You can't fault the Dems for wanting to shift the SC back from the far right. If they were unreasonable they could've nominated a more liberal judge, but they didn't. Obama nominated a sensible and we'll qualified candidate on the right side of moderate to replace a conservative judge.

 

[BG_Knightmare]

Are you actually trying to make a point that Trump appointed a conservative supreme court justice? I think we all agree on that.

Republican presidents tend to nominate right leaning judges, same as the Dems. One notable exception being Obama on Garland as you pointed out earlier. My point is Kavanaugh is too far right to replace a moderate swing vote in Kennedy. He will likely vote along hard party lines.

 

[sk8knight]

So you won't argue the substance of the article (Kavanaughs decisions and rulings) and instead discredit the source?

Kavanaugh has only become extreme because it fits the playbook you leftists are running. I read a few articles recently that debunked this, one referencing his history or rulings and that he ruled with the majority on appeals cases something like 98% of the time. I briefly looked for it but ran out of time at lunch.

I could spend all day debunking all of the trash the left threw out surrounding the hearings and it wouldn’t change your mind. Such as Kamala Harris taking Kavanaugh’s answer to Cruz’s question about a case where he described the plaintiff’s argument. She edited out “they said” to make it fit her agenda of painting Kavanaugh as someone who thinks birth control should be illegal even though he never said that. This is a straight out lie and should be an ethics violation. Then, Hillary Clinton picks it up, runs with it, and doubles down. Then you eat it up and make statements about him being extreme right. All built on lies such as Harris’s.

 

[UCFWayne]

Republican presidents tend to nominate right leaning judges, same as the Dems. One notable exception being Obama on Garland as you pointed out earlier. My point is Kavanaugh is too far right to replace a moderate swing vote in Kennedy. He will likely vote along hard party lines.

elections have consequences

 

[The Branch]

I'll admit, I'm ignorant to Biden's role in previous SC nominee blockage I'll need more clarification on that. But in reality you there's no way to know when an SC judge will vacate their seat unless they announce it. Scalia's death just happened to be in Obama's last year.

You can't fault the Dems for wanting to shift the SC back from the far right. If they were unreasonable they could've nominated a more liberal judge, but they didn't. Obama nominated a sensible and we'll qualified candidate on the right side of moderate to replace a conservative judge.

 

[The Branch]

Now ... Cry about Garland some more when your own VICE PRESIDENT agreed with the Republicans on the issue.

 

[BG_Knightmare]

Now ... Cry about Garland some more when your own VICE PRESIDENT agreed with the Republicans on the issue.

Alright, I'll stand by Biden on that. This is an election year afterall so by that logic the President shouldnt have nominated anyone until after November lol

 

[Crazyhole]

Now ... Cry about Garland some more when your own VICE PRESIDENT agreed with the Republicans on the issue.

Ah yes. SCOTUS should be subject to the politics of the day. It has nothing to do with impartiality, which the senate is incapable of.

We may as well just let the president appoint justices on a whim.

 

[UCFWayne]

Alright, I'll stand by Biden on that. This is an election year afterall so by that logic the President shouldnt have nominated anyone until after November lol

the precedence is on the election year of president considering they are the ones making the nomination in the first place.

i dont think one has ever been held up on a non presidential election year. that would be a bad precedence to set and would make it extremely hard to ever replace a sitting judge. are you incapable of looking into the future to see how that could hurt you vs today?

 

[The Branch]

We are about to have something new to talk about on the subject. The Democrats knew they couldn't punch a hole in his testimony (without lying of course like Kamala and Cory) .... so now they have a mysterious letter they are forwarding to the FBI for investigation.

Odds are they found some chick he knew when he was 19 to say he hit on her and made her feel uncomfortable. It took them a very long time to drum up something ... but they finally figured it out at the last minute.

 

[UCFKnight85]

If we had an honest media that cared about taking liberals to task, there would be story after story on how Kamala Harris and Corey Booker both shamefully and disgustingly literally lied about things that didn't exist, or lied about documents that were public knowledge already, specifically to paint Kavanaugh as a racist or a crook.

We have 2 US Senators caught in disgusting lies and smear campaigns and the media yawns.

 

[NinjaKnight]

If we had an honest media that cared about taking liberals to task, there would be story after story on how Kamala Harris and Corey Booker both shamefully and disgustingly literally lied about things that didn't exist, or lied about documents that were public knowledge already, specifically to paint Kavanaugh as a racist or a crook.

We have 2 US Senators caught in disgusting lies and smear campaigns and the media yawns.

LMAO at 85 whining about lying politicians.

Trump has over 3,000 documented 100% lies on record since assuming office, and you suck him off everyday.

Why do you make it so goddamn easy to show how stupid you are.

 

[The Branch]

If we had an honest media that cared about taking liberals to task, there would be story after story on how Kamala Harris and Corey Booker both shamefully and disgustingly literally lied about things that didn't exist, or lied about documents that were public knowledge already, specifically to paint Kavanaugh as a racist or a crook.

We have 2 US Senators caught in disgusting lies and smear campaigns and the media yawns.

Even funnier was after Kamala Harris' video was given 4 Pinocchios and debunked by even the liberal media sources, Hillary re-tweeted it a day later with the same lies.

 

[sk8knight]

We are about to have something new to talk about on the subject. The Democrats knew they couldn't punch a hole in his testimony (without lying of course like Kamala and Cory) .... so now they have a mysterious letter they are forwarding to the FBI for investigation.

Odds are they found some chick he knew when he was 19 to say he hit on her and made her feel uncomfortable. It took them a very long time to drum up something ... but they finally figured it out at the last minute.

The Intercept is reporting that sources say it concerns an incident between Kavanaugh and a woman when they were in high school. Please tell me her name is Anita Hill.

 

[The Branch]

The Intercept is reporting that sources say it concerns an incident between Kavanaugh and a woman when they were in high school. Please tell me her name is Anita Hill.

They went through his High School yearbook and called every girl in there until they found one that is a member of ANTIFA.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Here we go. The disgusting left wing smear campaign is taking off. Their extremist base demanded they do ANYTHING to stop Kavanaugh and now at the 11th hour they’re going to try and Anita Hill him.

 

[BG_Knightmare]

Okay, let's take a step back from the edge here. There's no reason we can't have constructive discussions without people getting hysterical. We don't know all the facts surrounding this allegation, but it must be serious enough that someone thought informing the FBI was appropriate. Regardless, if something happened when Kavanaugh was in highschool it's well beyond the statuate of limitations anyway. Not saying it shouldn't be pursued but legally nothing can be done about it.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Okay, let's take a step back from the edge here. There's no reason we can't have constructive discussions without people getting hysterical. .

You must be new here

 

[sk8knight]

Okay, let's take a step back from the edge here. There's no reason we can't have constructive discussions without people getting hysterical. We don't know all the facts surrounding this allegation, but it must be serious enough that someone thought informing the FBI was appropriate. Regardless, if something happened when Kavanaugh was in highschool it's well beyond the statuate of limitations anyway. Not saying it shouldn't be pursued but legally nothing can be done about it.

Feinstein had the letter in July. It wasn’t important enough to turn over then. She waited until the 11th hour when she can represent it as some huge deal. Meanwhile, WaPo is reporting that the FBI will not open an investigation and is giving it to the White House to add to his background file.

So it apparently wasn’t serious and was being used by DiFi for optics.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Feinstein had the letter in July. It wasn’t important enough to turn over then. She waited until the 11th hour when she can represent it as some huge deal. Meanwhile, WaPo is reporting that the FBI will not open an investigation and is giving it to the White House to add to his background file.

So it apparently wasn’t serious and was being used by DiFi for optics.

Shit head left wing smear campaign

 

[UCFWayne]

hows rgb's health?