skinsmarydu Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 On 7/18/2018 at 12:21 AM, bearrock said: I got a buck on @twa He don't talk that good.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbit Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) @skinsmarydu better late than never Edited July 28, 2018 by Gibbit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, tshile said: Elections have consequences This could be interpreted in a few different ways if we’re talking about 2016.... I’m not at all sure he will be confirmed any more. Momentum seems to have swung against him, and there are lots of documents and decisions to go through. Edited July 28, 2018 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, visionary said: ..... Momentum seems to have swung against him,..... Only for those within the bubble. Nothing significant (or even minor) or unexpected has occurred that would derail his nomination. Edited July 29, 2018 by nonniey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 I'm really hoping that Trump somehow manages an own goal over his wall and self-blocks Brett with a shutdown. I very much doubt Mitch would let that happen but if Trump is wired enough he might overrule Mitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 Still open for bets if anyone is interested. He's going to be confirmed, and my guess is closer to 55 than to 50 ayes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 Shes right. Her request is beyond any previous record request for any nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 14 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: Shes right. Her request is beyond any previous record request for any nominee. I'm not sure how relevant the staff secretary records will be, but why is it off limits? GOP agrees that his WH counsel records are fair game. What's so wrong with wanting to look at staff secretary records? If it's not relevant, then no real harm done. I would prefer they err on the side of being thorough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 1 minute ago, bearrock said: I'm not sure how relevant the staff secretary records will be, but why is it off limits? GOP agrees that his WH counsel records are fair game. What's so wrong with wanting to look at staff secretary records? If it's not relevant, then no real harm done. I would prefer they err on the side of being thorough. I hear the press has requested his wife's e-mails as well. 20 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: Shes right. Her request is beyond any previous record request for any nominee. Even Estrada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 It's a thinly veiled attempt to run out the clock. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said: It's a thinly veiled attempt to run out the clock. Next Congress doesn't take office until January. Dems could only run out the clock if GOP is stupid enough to let them. Supposed concern of docs from 3 years of staff secretary tacking on enough time to run out 5 months is a real stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) We’ve got plenty of time. The Supreme Court isn’t going anywhere. How long did it take last time? Edited July 30, 2018 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) Merrick Garland is still waiting for the GOP to go through his papers... Saw that the Notorious RBG said she has at least 5 more years in her for SCOTUS. I'd bet it gets shorter if the Dems take back power in the WH and part of Congress in 2020. Edited July 31, 2018 by The Evil Genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 6 hours ago, The Evil Genius said: Merrick Garland is still waiting for the GOP to go through his papers... Saw that the Notorious RBG said she has at least 5 more years in her for SCOTUS. I'd bet it gets shorter if the Dems take back power in the WH and part of Congress in 2020. Probably true. She definitely has a finger on the pulse of the political winds. I think we’ll see Thomas retire before 2020 if the GOP holds the Senate as for Garland, I’m glad to see the left embrace the guerilla tactics for the Court. They should definitely try to garland Kavanagh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: as for Garland, I’m glad to see the left embrace the guerilla tactics for the Court. They should definitely try to garland Kavanagh. Yeah, asking for the nominee's work product from his days in the White House is the same as sitting on the nomination without any action for 10 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, bearrock said: Yeah, asking for the nominee's work product from his days in the White House is the same as sitting on the nomination without any action for 10 months. Yeah it is more like Estrada.....how many years did the Dems drag that one out over documents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 minute ago, twa said: Yeah it is more like Estrada.....how many years did the Dems drag that one out over documents? Blocking Estrada was wrong on many levels. But asking for docs isn't the same as filibustering for two plus years. Not that either side could do it anymore, but situations like prolonged filibustering of Estrada shows exactly why filibuster is inappropriate for the Senate's advise and consent duties to an executive nomination. All of the President's nominations deserve an up or down vote. But the process leading up to the nomination should be thorough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) Quote Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has privately told senators he views the appointment of a special counsel by the Justice Department as appropriate, a comment that could shed new light about his views of Robert Mueller's investigation into Donald Trump's presidential campaign, according to sources familiar with the meetings. But Kavanaugh has also stood by his stated views that question whether a sitting US president can be indicted on criminal charges, instead saying Congress should play the lead role in impeaching and removing a president -- and also enact a law ensuring a president can be indicted after leaving office. The comments, which multiple sources said were relayed to senators as he's made the rounds on Capitol Hill, give a glimpse into how Kavanaugh is carefully handling questions about his views on executive power at a time when Trump and his associates face growing legal pressure from the Mueller probe. The sources say the nominee is careful not to tip his hand on his views of the Mueller investigation's constitutionality, given that he could rule on matters stemming from the probe, leaving ample questions about his views. Edited July 31, 2018 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 Just seen on MSNBC: an ad for the confirmation of Kavanaugh by one of his former female clerks. "Paid for by the Judicial Crisis Network. " 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now