SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Notice there isn’t a bunch of classmates coming out saying his character wasn’t what is being described by the accusers

Ya, only people it seems to publicly support this self-image he portrayed of himself from that time period werent there.

[Bozo the kKklown]

It's amazing that people think anti-Kavanaugh people are all partisan when NONE of this came up for Gorsuch. NONE. You even had some Dems who voted for Gorsuch.

 

Kavanaugh is a partisan hack at the least. He has a bad judicial temperament. And that doesn't even touch the allegations against him with his finances, his drinking, and his alleged proclivity to commit violence against women. I mean the guy was okay with employees putting people through polygraph tests but then says he would not submit himself to one. That's not a person who is in the interest of fairness. I posted something from senators Leahy and others from 10 and 12 years ago when he was confirmed as judges, and they all were concerned about his temperament back then. This is not a right now situation. The guy is a hack and shouldn't be on anyone's court. To allow him the chance to be on the Supreme Court is a dark abuse of power by this country.

 

 

And that doesn't include that our president is under a criminal investigation and may not even be legitimate, so why is he allowed to add justices to anything?

[Llevron]

2 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

Half-assed is an extremely generous way of putting it.

 

We're getting like, 1/10th of an ass, at most.  Probably more like 1/20th of an ass.

 

Any incel will tell you that 1/20th of an ass is better than no ass at all. 

[NoCalMike]

I am not going to sit here and act like I was happy about the Kavanaugh nomination. Once I learned about his judicial history, yeah of course, as a more liberal-minded person, I wasn't thrilled, however I had accepted the fact that he was going to get in simply via the numbers game. 

 

Then once all this stuff came up it changed things and the more stuff that continues to come up, continues to change things.  

 

Don't see the issue with any of that.

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Notice there isn’t a bunch of classmates coming out saying his character wasn’t what is being described by the accusers

 

I'm sure he wasn't slapping most of his classmates with his dick so that does shock me lol

 

4 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I am not going to sit here and act like I was happy about the Kavanaugh nomination. Once I learned about his judicial history, yeah of course, as a more liberal-minded person, I wasn't thrilled, however I had accepted the fact that he was going to get in simply via the numbers game. 

 

Then once all this stuff came up it changed things and the more stuff that continues to come up, continues to change things.  

 

Don't see the issue with any of that.

 

They are gonna but another conservative on there and that guy is still gonna do what they tell him to do and im still gonna complain about the Dems losing the seat but it shouldn't be this guy regardless of any of that. 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

7 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

It's amazing that people think anti-Kavanaugh people are all partisan when NONE of this came up for Gorsuch. NONE. You even had some Dems who voted for Gorsuch.

 

Kavanaugh is a partisan hack at the least. He has a bad judicial temperament. And that doesn't even touch the allegations against him with his finances, his drinking, and his alleged proclivity to commit violence against women. I mean the guy was okay with employees putting people through polygraph tests but then says he would not submit himself to one. That's not a person who is in the interest of fairness. I posted something from senators Leahy and others from 10 and 12 years ago when he was confirmed as judges, and they all were concerned about his temperament back then. This is not a right now situation. The guy is a hack and shouldn't be on anyone's court. To allow him the chance to be on the Supreme Court is a dark abuse of power by this country.

 

 

And that doesn't include that our president is under a criminal investigation and may not even be legitimate, so why is he allowed to add justices to anything?

 

I agree with all that but a R President with a R thin majority in Senate = they get to seat who ever they want. Its just the way it is. Sucks.

This was what the election was all about and urban pockets of desperately needed D voters in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida didnt show up. 

 

Kav is going to be confirmed, I doubt Collins or Markusky (sp?) will vote no.

 

Dems need to get out and vote like they did when Obama was on the ticket.

[AsburySkinsFan]

11 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

It's amazing that people think anti-Kavanaugh people are all partisan when NONE of this came up for Gorsuch. NONE. You even had some Dems who voted for Gorsuch.

 

Kavanaugh is a partisan hack at the least. He has a bad judicial temperament. And that doesn't even touch the allegations against him with his finances, his drinking, and his alleged proclivity to commit violence against women. I mean the guy was okay with employees putting people through polygraph tests but then says he would not submit himself to one. That's not a person who is in the interest of fairness. I posted something from senators Leahy and others from 10 and 12 years ago when he was confirmed as judges, and they all were concerned about his temperament back then. This is not a right now situation. The guy is a hack and shouldn't be on anyone's court. To allow him the chance to be on the Supreme Court is a dark abuse of power by this country.

 

 

And that doesn't include that our president is under a criminal investigation and may not even be legitimate, so why is he allowed to add justices to anything?

He uses those calendars as if they are exculpatory. As if someone who just sexually assaulted someone is going to write down that he drunkenly assaulted someone at a party. Also, who knows if those dates are accurate or when they were written, or even if he was where he said he wrote. There's no way anyone would be convicted based on those calendars. I think that's the biggest facepalm for me in this whole thing, is that a Federal judge and nominee for an Associate Justice on the SCOTUS would use those as if they were any sort of evidence at all.

And then yeah, all the "but Hillary" bull****.

Oh, and the "I got into Yale. I must be brilliant and innocent." Just remember, George W. Bush went to Yale too...so excuse me for not automatically assuming that you're a legal genius.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RedskinsFan44]

 

[visionary]

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

48 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

I agree with all that but a R President with a R thin majority in Senate = they get to seat who ever they want. Its just the way it is. Sucks.

This was what the election was all about and urban pockets of desperately needed D voters in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida didnt show up. 

 

Kav is going to be confirmed, I doubt Collins or Markusky (sp?) will vote no.

 

Dems need to get out and vote like they did when Obama was on the ticket.

I understand that they will try and confirm a Republican. That is part of the game but this guy couldn’t even hide his partisanship. It’s now public record that he attacked the Democratic Party. That guy should not be near a judgeship.

 

If you want the reason why, look at the Neil Gorsuch thread versus this one. No one called Gorsuch a bad person or question his judicial temperament even though he is conservative.

[AsburySkinsFan]

14 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I understand that they will try and confirm a Republican. That is part of the game but this guy couldn’t even hide his partisanship. It’s now public record that he attacked the Democratic Party. That guy should not be near a judgeship.

 

If you want the reason why, look at the Neil Gorsuch thread versus this one. No one called Gorsuch a bad person or question his judicial temperament even though he is conservative.

I agree, demeanor is as much a dis-qualifier as anything anymore. He quickly trotted conspiracies about the Clintons, and anti-Democrat rants.

This from a guy who is going to be an arbitrating voice on some of the most important legal questions in our nation for the next 30 years...and he is so partisan that he allows himself to equate himself with partisan hacks on Faux News?!

 

@BenningRoadSkinis exactly right, there was NONE of this on Gorsuch, why? Because there weren't issues with him, his confirmation sailed through. Yet, now that issues have been found with Kavanaugh, that he obviously lied to Congress about the extent of his drinking and issues with his drinking, and that he has allegedly sexually assaulted at least one woman, and now that his full demeanor was on display...you bet there are concerns, and NO they aren't partisan concerns, they are legit concerns about who this man is and whether he can and will be a fair arbiter on the bench.

[Zguy28]

18 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I agree, demeanor is as much a dis-qualifier as anything anymore. He quickly trotted conspiracies about the Clintons, and anti-Democrat rants.

This from a guy who is going to be an arbitrating voice on some of the most important legal questions in our nation for the next 30 years...and he is so partisan that he allows himself to equate himself with partisan hacks on Faux News?!

 

@BenningRoadSkinis exactly right, there was NONE of this on Gorsuch, why? Because there weren't issues with him, his confirmation sailed through. Yet, now that issues have been found with Kavanaugh, that he obviously lied to Congress about the extent of his drinking and issues with his drinking, and that he has allegedly sexually assaulted at least one woman, and now that his full demeanor was on display...you bet there are concerns, and NO they aren't partisan concerns, they are legit concerns about who this man is and whether he can and will be a fair arbiter on the bench.

I made this exact argument to a staunch supporter yesterday. He had no answer except that he said "Dems learned their failure on Gorsuch". I just sighed and walked away.

[NoCalMike]

Honest question: Why doesn't his views on executive power not worry more people from "the other side of the aisle?" or does that side agree with that opinion?

[Hersh]

19 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Honest question: Why doesn't his views on executive power not worry more people from "the other side of the aisle?" or does that side agree with that opinion?

 

I’m lost as to which side you are referencing 

[NoCalMike]

3 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

I’m lost as to which side you are referencing 

 

The side that seemingly wants to ram his nomination through. 

[DogofWar1]

 

I think Flake knows that this battle is for not just the souls of our institutions, but for HIS soul.

 

He can be the man who struck the deathblow to the USA as we knew it, giving the current cabal free rein under cover of a complicit SCOTUS, or he can be the man who held fast and refused to hold party over country.

 

We shall see which he ultimately is, but its good he seemingly recognizes how much of a sham this is.

[Popeman38]

43 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

@BenningRoadSkinis exactly right, there was NONE of this on Gorsuch, why? Because there weren't issues with him, his confirmation sailed through. Yet, now that issues have been found with Kavanaugh, that he obviously lied to Congress about the extent of his drinking and issues with his drinking, and that he has allegedly sexually assaulted at least one woman, and now that his full demeanor was on display...you bet there are concerns, and NO they aren't partisan concerns, they are legit concerns about who this man is and whether he can and will be a fair arbiter on the bench.

There was a concerted effort by the Democrats to block his confirmation. So much so that Mitch turkey-neck McConnell changed the rules removing the 60 vote requirement.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/07/us/politics/gorsuch-confirmation-vote.html

 

Once the 60 vote requirement was reduced, the 3 Democrats in Republican states had cover to vote yes.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271

 

NBC is not exactly a conservative screed. for their article:

Quote

Within days of taking office, Republican President Donald Trump announced his first Supreme Court nominee: the conservative Judge Neil Gorsuch.

 

Democrats immediately cried foul.

 

...

 

In 2013, Senate Democrats — then in the majority — triggered the nuclear option for the first time.

 

Frustrated with what they considered the relentless Republican obstruction of Obama's appointments, Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, changed the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold.

 

...

 

McConnell railed against the change at the time, though the 60-vote threshold still applied to high court nominees.

 

However, when it came time to confirm Gorsuch in 2017, near-unified Democratic opposition and the GOP's own slim majority of 51 Republican senators made getting to a 60-vote supermajority impossible.

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

So if they can interview anyone now (assuming they're not bull****ting, which they probably are) they have to interview that Squi dude.

 

 

[DogofWar1]

3 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

So if they can interview anyone now (assuming they're not bull****ting, which they probably are) they have to interview that Squi dude.

And hopefully the limitations on conversation topics have been lifted as well.

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

And hopefully the limitations on conversation topics have been lifted as well.

 

Yes.

 

I can't believe that we're in a place where we're hoping a guy named Squi gets interviewed by the FBI.

[NoCalMike]

Every time I hear "Squi" I think of "Woogie aka Don Wooganowski" from There's Something About Mary.

 

Edit: I keep wishing I could take Trump/WH on their word/headline of article, but it seems like every time you dig a little deeper there is something he isn't being straight about.  If he truly has ordered the FBI to do whatever necessary? Good on him for at least seeming to take this seriously.  However if we find out that there is still "off limit questions?" then......

Edited October 1, 2018 by NoCalMike

[JCB]

I think of this guy:

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

41 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

There was a concerted effort by the Democrats to block his confirmation. So much so that Mitch turkey-neck McConnell changed the rules removing the 60 vote requirement.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/07/us/politics/gorsuch-confirmation-vote.html

 

Once the 60 vote requirement was reduced, the 3 Democrats in Republican states had cover to vote yes.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271

 

NBC is not exactly a conservative screed. for their article:

 

I'm sorry but did the rules change or are we still operating under the same rules that were in place with Gorsuch?

If the rules are the same then your point is invalid.