I'm not worried about it. I think these things happen for a reason. But please, stop acting as though you care about "balance". Otherwise, you would clearly understand why replacing Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon, with Merrick Garland was an inappropriate gag.
My second favorite part of this is how divorced from history the idea that one party now rules is. My favorite part is that it is all based upon an election in which 2 million more people voted for the Democratic candidate. It is arrogant to think that historical trends stop because of 1-2 elections (see, Democrats in 2009). It is absurdly arrogant to think it does based only on the distribution of voters in an election in which you received far fewer votes.
The GOP governors have done a great job in the past couple years of knocking a lot of those dead, vote from the grave Democrats off the voter registration lists.
Garland was a moderate. Hell, Orrin Hatch advocated for him. Garland would have been the swing vote. Kennedy would have been replaced by Gorsuch. The ideological balance of the Court would have went from center-right to center-left. No big deal.
Was Scalia a swing vote, Sparky? Did Obama concede the 2016 election back then so the GOP prez could nominate Gorsuch to replace Kennedy? Is Obama psychic?
Looking forward to Republicans not talking about voter fraud anymore. I'm gonna hold my breath, because that's so likely.
All you have to do is look back to 2008. A widely-reviled GOP president ending his term with two failed wars, unprecedented debts and deficits, the economy imploding, AND demographics starting shift away from traditional GOP strongholds. It would have been relatively undramatic to say that the Democrats would easily hold control of the government for the next decade. Yet all it took was one election to swap the house back to the GOP. By all means, cons, keep thinking you have this thing in the bag forever.
Do you understand how the Supreme Court works, Sparky? Garland would have taken Kennedy's spot as the swing vote (despite the fact that he was replacing Scalia). Kennedy would have retired if Trump won. If Trump didn't win, it's unlikely that Kennedy retires.
She is dead in the water down by 12 points. She is not putting squat on the line and dont come at us with democrats have principles
She is likely dead in the water. And she isn't helping her long odds by voting against Kavanaugh. That's what makes it principled. Also, you cede the moral high ground (not that you had it in the first place) when you put an accused sexual assaulter on the Supreme Court without actually caring about whether he did it or not.
And you are one to talk about high ground you have no clue what it means You are the typical pot calling the kettle black
I didn't vote for the Groper-in-Chief, and I'm not currently supporting Kavanaugh. I have my moral high ground.
I really dont care who you voted for or against but you have a habit of trying to insult every body that disagrees with you so no I dont thank your high ground is much more than a ant hill
Remember that Don McGahn is the guy who was in charge of the FBI investigation (he set the parameters). Remember that he's the guy who didn't allow the FBI to interview Ramirez's corroborating witnesses, Dr. Ford, Dr. Ford's corroborating witnesses, or Judge Kavanaugh. That's why I always put a fox in charge of guarding my henhouse.
Cornyn says cloture vote will be around 10:30 tomorrow, which would put the final confirmation vote around 4:30 on Saturday.
