Kavanaugh Hearing

The committee has hundreds of thousands of documentation and all of his prior decisions already in their possession. And they have plenty of time to sift through the remainder before this hearing is over.

Kavanaugh is more than qualified and your anger is simply partisan.

 

Why was #1 a travesty?

 

Because the Supreme Court was operating with one less member for over one year. Had Scalia died in September 2016, I could understand the delay.

 

The USSC has operated before without 9 justices and it’s perfectly capable of doing so. In fact, the number of justices is not stipulated in the Constitution and Congress has the authority to increase or decrease the number. It’s been more than 9 and less than 9 at different points in its history.

So how is 8 a travesty?

 

The ACA was passed with months and months of reviews by both sides. Even then President Obama spoke to Congress about it.

This nonsense of "had to be passed before you could see what was in it" is a total BS. Simply an age old tired talking point. If one does any research at all, it would be obvious that that was far, far, far, from the case with the ACA.

 

Because the Senate could have and should have filled the vacancy, IMO.

 

Maybe you forgot about how the Republicans simply refused to hold any hearings on any Supreme Court Justice nomination Obama put forth--- with almost 9 months left in his presidency.
Including Merrick Garland, a man the Republicans said they supported. Yet Stonewalling Obama was more important.

 

Only when it benefits the Republicans is it not a travesty.
Sorry, not buying what you are selling here.

 

Nah …. this is just more leftie ridiculousness. They're pissed (a) their gal lost to "the Donald" … and (b) Trumps going to add conservative to the SCOTUS. It's just mindless liberal political nonsense. The moronic demonstrations pretty much prove as much.

 

The Dems are trying to get payback for the Pubs blocking votes on justices in 2016.

But they don't have the power to effectively do it.

 

The travesty was leaving a spot open for so long despite having a nomination that many Republicans previously supported in order to play political games. It's why I nearly spit out my drink every time I hear the Republicans now claim that the Supreme Court should not be politicized.

 

I don't see it as some travesty but agree with you on being incredulous at Pubs claiming the Supreme Court should not be politicized. True for Dems as well.

 

I think it's a terrible way to treat a man who worked as hard as he did to earn that opportunity.

 

It's both sides. Quit fooling yourself.

 

Why?

 

I know it feels good to try and equalize this.
It's just another false equivalency.
Fooling yourself is one thing. Lying to yourself is another.

 

You’re calling it a travesty. Your words, not mine.

I have no problem with the Senate not confirming a USSC Justice in the final year of a President’s 2nd term, the political climate notwithstanding. Would feel the same under the same scenario if it happens to Trump.

The Senate is also voted in by the American people and they have advice and consent authority and by exercising it in this manner and under these circumstances, you are labeling that a “travesty”. That’s not only hyperbole but simply wrong-headed.

 

Who are the “many” Republicans that previously supported Garland for a seat on the USSC?