Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[darkswordsman17]

How do the two Trump picks not pass? Or rather... how would anyone else pass?

I'm looking to understand the contrast you speak of.

Uh...really? You can't understand that if they had to nominate candidates that had to get 60 votes, they'd have to find less radical candidates, ones that would require some Democrats to get on board as well? Or would require their party to have 60 of the seats to vote party lines? Which even if they had 60 of them as their party, they'd still probably need to compromise some as there's going to be conflicts of interest likely.

I guess if you want to debate if these two particular people are that radical, you can, but the underlying premise behind his comment is pretty simple.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I think it is transparently obvious that she does not do that in plenty of cases so why should that matter here?

How popular was the tax cut in Maine? She voted for it.



Want to take any bets that she votes to confirm Kavanaugh despite the apparent will of her people?

Oh I have no doubt she will. All I am saying is a funding campaign is probably less meaningful than the polls of co attitude ya and those won’t mean shit to her. She seems to crave the attention that being a late decider gives her.

Angus King is polling. Over 60% in Maine in the same polls.

 

[fskimospy]

All of them. I saw nothing from an unbiased source to back up the claims, just your opinions. You are well known for presenting your opinion as self proclaimed "undeniable facts".

Haha, you know I’m right in all of them you’re just engaging in motivated reasoning.

Kavanaugh is unpopular:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/cnn-poll-kavanaugh-confirmation/index.html

Lowest support of any SCOTUS nominee in the modern era.

Republicans attempt to obstruct the Muller probe:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo

The Nunes memo was one of many attempts by Congressional Republicans to undermine the Mueller investigation.

Shadow VA:

https://www.propublica.org/article/...oskowitz-marc-sherman-shadow-rulers-of-the-va

Now we both know you won’t be changing your opinion regardless of the facts because you were never interested in facts to begin with.

I am interested to see your next excuses though!

The Judge Kavanaugh was just fine while serving on the appellate court that oversees many many more cases. Then after he was nominated for a SCOTUS position he became enemy #1 of the United States and the American people.
It is obvious where the problem is and it isn't Judge Kavanaugh.

LOL

This is some bizarre rewriting of history.
Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[Jhhnn]

How do the two Trump picks not pass? Or rather... how would anyone else pass?

I'm looking to understand the contrast you speak of.

Don't be dense. The 60 vote threshold means that the opposing party has to provide some buy-in, encouraging nominees with moderate views & records. They don't even have to be terribly moderate, either. Every Justice from the last 100 years has made that hurdle save one, Gorsuch, and there may be another with Kavanaugh.

 

[Sunburn74]

All of them. I saw nothing from an unbiased source to back up the claims, just your opinions. You are well known for presenting your opinion as self proclaimed "undeniable facts".

The Judge Kavanaugh was just fine while serving on the appellate court that oversees many many more cases. Then after he was nominated for a SCOTUS position he became enemy #1 of the United States and the American people.

LOL

I think it's become clear that many of the lower court appointments by the senate are basically earmarked with minimal review. Even now there was a report about 15 of such recent judges the democratic party agreed to wave the white flag and expedite their confirmation as a concession to the GOP as a means of allowing their members to campaign.

Knowing this, that appointments to lesser courts generally get much less scrutiny, I don't think its a good argument to say well he was confirmed before so he should be confirmed again for an even more important and prestigious position.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Don't be dense. The 60 vote threshold means that the opposing party has to provide some buy-in, encouraging nominees with moderate views & records. They don't even have to be terribly moderate, either. Every Justice from the last 100 years has made that hurdle save one, Gorsuch, and there may be another with Kavanaugh.

And Gorsuch would have easily passed that hurdle had he not been nominated by Trump.

 

[pcgeek11]

Haha, you know I’m right in all of them you’re just engaging in motivated reasoning.

Kavanaugh is unpopular:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/cnn-poll-kavanaugh-confirmation/index.html

Lowest support of any SCOTUS nominee in the modern era.

Republicans attempt to obstruct the Muller probe:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo

The Nunes memo was one of many attempts by Congressional Republicans to undermine the Mueller investigation.

Shadow VA:

https://www.propublica.org/article/...oskowitz-marc-sherman-shadow-rulers-of-the-va

Now we both know you won’t be changing your opinion regardless of the facts because you were never interested in facts to begin with.

I am interested to see your next excuses though!



This is some bizarre rewriting of history.
Where do you come up with this stuff?

Wow what was I thinking. How could I have questioned or disagreed with CNN or a Wiki.

Where do I come up with it?

I know you don't recognize it, You aren't familiar with the truth.

LOL.

 

[Jhhnn]

And Gorsuch would have easily passed that hurdle had he not been nominated by Trump.

Pure projection. We can't know that. I figure Garland probably would have which is why McConnell never gave him the chance.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow what was I thinking. How could I have questioned or disagreed with CNN or a Wiki.

Where do I come up with it?

I know you don't recognize it, You aren't familiar with the truth.

LOL.

So what facts are you disputing specifically and why?

 

[Starbuck1975]

If there was anything there I would have expected it to surface before now. It's just too convenient to have it surface now, and it reeks of desperation, really. Maybe the guy is too conservative or whatever, but this is not going to do anything but damage the opposition's credibility in many eyes.

It’s a SCOTUS appointment, so if this is serious, it needs to come to light.

But this had better be criminal in nature, and not something Kavanaugh wrote in a yearbook when he was 15.

I guess this means the perjury accusations aren’t sticking to the wall.

 

[Jhhnn]

It’s a SCOTUS appointment, so if this is serious, it needs to come to light.

But this had better be criminal in nature, and not something Kavanaugh wrote in a yearbook when he was 15.

I guess this means the perjury accusations aren’t sticking to the wall.

It doesn't mean that at all.

 

[crashtech]

It’s a SCOTUS appointment, so if this is serious, it needs to come to light.

But this had better be criminal in nature, and not something Kavanaugh wrote in a yearbook when he was 15.

I guess this means the perjury accusations aren’t sticking to the wall.

Well, here's the thing. Kavanaugh's 2003 appointment to the DC Circuit was very contentious and held up for three years. If there was something there, it would have been expected to have come out at that time. That's why I think this latest accusation is simply made up or grossly exaggerated. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. I don't particularly like this guy, but these kinds of left field, last minute accusations just smack of dirty tricks to me.

 

[fskimospy]

It’s a SCOTUS appointment, so if this is serious, it needs to come to light.

But this had better be criminal in nature, and not something Kavanaugh wrote in a yearbook when he was 15.

I guess this means the perjury accusations aren’t sticking to the wall.

I mean if the answer to stopping this nomination is behind door #1 or door #2 you open both doors.

 

[UNCjigga]

This is just another delay tactic by the Democrats. LOL what a joke.

Thanks McConnell!

[and for the record, I agree with you, this is the ugliest of politics]

 

[UNCjigga]

I mean if the answer to stopping this nomination is behind door #1 or door #2 you open both doors.

I only hope that Feinstein is smart enough to know that if you're referring something for a federal investigation, it had better be something serious and not some he said-she said shit.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I mean if the answer to stopping this nomination is behind door #1 or door #2 you open both doors.

And when you run out of doors, you start digging through dumpsters

 

[soundforbjt]

And when you run out of doors, you start digging through dumpsters

And if the situation was reversed, do you think republicans would be better or worse in trying to stop Kavanaugh?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The m

Apparently this has something to do with someone from high school for him. What's weird about that is that any crime he committed in high school would be long past the statute of limitations (and not really the FBI's business anyway). Someone on Reddit had a plausible theory, which was that this person was blackmailing Kavanaugh for something he had done back then and he had been paying her (or someone else) off for years to not go public. That would go a long way in explaining the mysterious debts and weird purchases Kavanaugh seems to have.

It's total speculation but it's the most plausible theory I've heard so far.

The most plausible theory is that it's just another smear, just another lie, just one more piece of shit that the Democrats are throwing against the wall hoping it sticks. Nothing new here, it doesn't even count as another high tech lynching.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

OMG, He possibly maybe did something bad when he was a teen in high school.

He probably pooped in his diapers when he was a baby. We can't have that on the court system.

This is just another delay tactic by the Democrats. LOL what a joke.

Maybe he copped a feel at the prom? That evil bastard!

 

[jackstar7]

Yes, I understand that people are at times illegally arrested. It happens everywhere for many different reasons, but not usually in groups of 70 or more. So what?

You said: "Except they weren't a problem. They were participating and were allowed to do so under the 1A AND the chair of the committee acknowledged it."

No, they were not allowed to continue disrupting and disturbing the peace. They were arrested and removed from the proceedings as they should have been.

I do not know if the charges were dropped later or not. They probably were.

The people were both protected under the 1A and disruptive of the proceedings and removed to allow for order. Both can be true.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Uh...really? You can't understand that if they had to nominate candidates that had to get 60 votes, they'd have to find less radical candidates, ones that would require some Democrats to get on board as well? Or would require their party to have 60 of the seats to vote party lines? Which even if they had 60 of them as their party, they'd still probably need to compromise some as there's going to be conflicts of interest likely.

I guess if you want to debate if these two particular people are that radical, you can, but the underlying premise behind his comment is pretty simple.

Hey dumbshit, they don't need 60 votes anymore thanks to Harry Reid's nuke move on not requiring it for judges. The Republicans just expanded it a wee bit.

 

[UberNeuman]

Maybe he copped a feel at the prom? That evil bastard!

"Grab 'em by the Pussy."

lol.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The people were both protected under the 1A and disruptive of the proceedings and removed to allow for order. Both can be true.

What if they conspired to break the law? You know, with a political action group or some such? Isn't conspiracy to break the law an additional charge?

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-alexei-wood-arrested-inauguration-protest/

"Five felony counts of destruction of property
One felony count of inciting a riot
One felony count of engaging in a riot
One felony count of conspiracy to riot

downgraded to

• Five felony counts of destruction of property
• One misdemeanor count of engaging in a riot
• One misdemeanor count of conspiracy to riot"

Found not guilty, maybe next time.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

"Grab 'em by the Pussy."

lol.

Is that a confession for you?

 

[UberNeuman]

Is that a confession for you?

yes. I have grabbed you.