That's why I love Trump. He doesn't need political leverage handed to him. He creates it on his own. He needs 50 votes and Pence will rubber stamp that bitch. And based on what I'm seeing, the GOP will gain in the Senate next month.
You mean the former Democratic Chairmen of the JC didn't really mean it when he said that a SCOTUS Nominee should not be considered during a POTUS election year? You would seem to be implying that former VP Joe Biden might not be the sharpest knife in the draw...... HOW DARE YOU, SIR!
I notice that you still haven't answered the original request: is there any evidence of that as a drinking game from prior to him saying it? The yearbook was public. Did any of them claim that it was a drinking game back then? Did anybody looking at the yearbook speculate that it was a drinking game? Anything at all to support that from before the moment he said that in the hearing?
I'm completely with you, there... you can probably count them on one hand... maybe two.... That is sad...
3 voted for Gorsuch. That is probably a pretty good guide. 22 voted for Roberts prior to the Garland mess though.
Was there any evidence of Dr. Ford or Ramirez allegations before they said anything? See as one of the boys that graduated with Kavanaugh had a year book entry that claimed he was the founder of the name. I would say yes, there is some.
Regarding Devil's Triangle... that's why you don't scream "perjury!" based on hearsay centered around describing things that took place 36 years ago, but you guys knew this, surely.
You Democrats are never happy. Joe Biden rule said a President does not appoint a SJ in a presidential election year. So the Republicans do as Joe says and you squeal like a stick pig. Dam make up your mind
There's going to be some fluidity in government and politics. You can't expect them to do the same thing the same way every time. But spare me the righteous indignation when your guy was the one who coined the infamous phrase "elections have consequences."
That is nonsensical. Again, people had pointed out the entry in his yearbook as being sexually motivated well before the hearing. Nobody seemed to step forward to "correct" that notion. In fact, just the opposite. His classmates said that it was a sex reference. There is a reason the NYT asked his classmates about it before the hearing. So did he submit this knowledge prior or after the Judge's public claim?
I believe he said what he meant, and he meant what he said... What he said was simply stupid... We shouldn't copy stupid with more stupid... Stupid is bad...
I want conservative justices, but I also want to watch Trump troll the left too. A win win if there ever was one.
In this country, elections for President are supposed to determine who gets to appoint Supreme Court justices for 4 years. Not 3. And not only if they win the Senate too. Setting precedent that no President gets to appoint Supreme Court Justices if their party doesn't control the Senate is going to be problematic. It is reasonable that a split government produces more moderates. It is unreasonable that it can't produce anybody. And Garland was the moderate.
Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed with 52-53 votes. Before all this other stuff started, my feeling was that despite his being a political operative in many ways in addition to a jurist (and not likely being truthful about the stolen emails), our political differences weren't disqualifying because his qualifications shouldn't be determined solely by his interpretation of the Constitution (i.e., since its not so far out one one side or the other). I will continue to say what I've said all along: 1. She was assaulted. 2. I don't know if he did it. 3. He lied under oath last week about several things that may not be germane to his judicial acumen, but nonetheless he lied. Dems are saying that's disqualifying. Pubs are saying well, maybe he did maybe he didn't but it's kinda ok when defending yourself against a fake attack, forgetting for political expediency that perjury is what got Clinton impeached.
Dude, I am not a Democrat... I want Kavanaugh in... If I were alive during the Thomas hearings, I would've wanted Thomas in... I thought Scalia was the best Justice on the court until he died... I simply think we shouldn't copy stupid with more stupid... I thought we should've done the right thing and confirm Garland, who was qualified in being on the Supreme Court, and Obama had the right to appoint him per the Constitution... My argument is, you should abide by the Constitution, especially when it's inconvenient for you...
That's a nice attempt by you to re-write the U.S. Constitution, which is a perfect example of why I want Mr. Trump to stack the Court with conservative justices.
Name one example of the "Biden Rule" being used before Garland. Biden definitely isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Nor is he somebody who deserves any sort of reliance based on what he said or did while Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It won't be 53. Heitkamp is a no.
Yeah, you appear to know as much about the Constitution as you do about history. Which also explains your affinity for "Mr. Trump."
