Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[imported_tajmahal]

Then you should have no problem backing up this claim you made with evidence...I'll wait.

It was referenced by Kavanaugh in the hearing. Done.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I agree! Court packing should definitely be done as well.

Conservatives aren’t great at understanding long term consequences. When you stopped playing by the rules you invite a response. You may not be happy when you get it but you have no one but yourselves to blame.

Called it!

 

[Zstream]

It was referenced by Kavanaugh in the hearing. Done.

Wait, the dems are asking for evidence? That’s fucking rich!

 

[fskimospy]

0 for 3 - keep it coming

Now you’re acting like a child. Is your ego really so fragile you can’t admit being wrong even when the evidence is staring you in your face?

If so that’s sad. You have a lot of growing up to do.

 

[K1052]

Something possibly percolating in the committee. Flake talked with Coons outside for a bit. Coons came back but Flake didn't. Lots of staff whispering.

 

[Zstream]

Now you’re acting like a child. Is your ego really so fragile you can’t admit being wrong even when the evidence is staring you in your face?

If so that’s sad. You have a lot of growing up to do.

0 - 4 - keep on dodging

 

[echo4747]

I sure loved it when the GOP delayed Merrick Garland's nomination for nearly a year. Ahhhh, good times.

Wait, what were you complaining about? Oh right, the dirty democrats delaying Kavanaugh's nomination for a couple more weeks.

IIRC many left wingers sure loved it too... They thought HRC was a "slam dunk" and couldn't wait to seat somebody further to the left of Garland. I think I even remember some folks on here touting Obama as the next supreme court judge

 

[fskimospy]

Called it!

Called what? I’ve been advocating for court packing for quite awhile now.

Congratulations for correctly predicting my publicly expressed opinion from two months ago, haha.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Let me ask you a question. If you were going to hire a babysitter to watch your kids for 5 years. You completed a background check and the sitter passed. Its Friday and they were going to start Monday. You get an email claiming your sitter abused other kids 10 years ago. Do you...

A. Put a pause on the start date and do additional background investigations.
B. Let the sitter in to start their 5 year job because its too late and you already did your background checks.

What if the email said the alleged abuse was 35 years ago as a teenager, the sitter has been squeaky clean since, and the information was held for weeks and used for obvious vested intent in creating chaos because two years ago the side that sent the email was thoroughly rejected by America and they've been throwing a tantrum since?

I'd probably dismiss it.

Nuance matters, you overly dumbed it down.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Something possibly percolating in the committee. Flake talked with Coons outside for a bit. Coons came back but Flake didn't. Lots of staff whispering.

You think it was a bribe offer?

 

[ecogen]

What if the email said the alleged abuse was 35 years ago as a teenager, the sitter has been squeaky clean since, and the information was held for weeks and used for obvious vested intent in creating chaos because two years ago the side that sent the email was thoroughly rejected by America and they've been throwing a tantrum since?


Nuance matters, you overly dumbed it down.

Getting more votes means being thoroughly rejected by America. Huh, TIL.

 

[K1052]

You think it was a bribe offer?

I have no idea what's going on and neither does anybody else.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I sure loved it when the GOP delayed Merrick Garland's nomination for nearly a year. Ahhhh, good times.

Wait, what were you complaining about? Oh right, the dirty democrats delaying Kavanaugh's nomination for a couple more weeks.

That would be a good reason for the Democrats to start packing the SC if they win the presidency and senate in 2020. McConnell and the GOP decided out of the blue to cut the size of the Supreme Court down from 9 to 8. No reason not to take it from 9 to 10 then.

 

[Paratus]

Wow @Zstream has done an almost buckshot level of shitting the bed in this thread.

 

[snoopy7548]

Wow @Zstream has done an almost buckshot level of shitting the bed in this thread.

0/4. NEXT!

 

[Maxima1]

I think I even remember some folks on here touting Obama as the next supreme court judge

I don't like the idea of placing previous pols as justices, but Obama tried many times to compromise with Republicans even as they spat in his face. He didn't come across as a partisan person. I'm horrified of the idea of the likes of Lee or Cruz on the court, though.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Lol, now Booker is talking about abused children in regards to the hearing.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Getting more votes means being thoroughly rejected by America. Huh, TIL.

Trump got more votes if you exclude CA's +3.3million for Hillary... big deal, a very left state voted very left... but that isn't even what I was getting at. Republicans wiped the floor with the Dems in the 2016 elections up and down the slate. See how the Congressional and state level elections turned out?

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I don't like the idea of placing previous pols as justices, but Obama tried many times to compromise with Republicans even as they spat in his face. He didn't come across as a partisan person. I'm horrified of the idea of the likes of Lee or Cruz on the court, though.

Yeah Garland was the compromise. Orrin Hatch said he'd easily get confirmed a few years ago.

 

[ecogen]

Trump got more votes if you exclude CA... big deal, a very left state voted very left... but that isn't even what I was getting at. Republicans wiped the floor with the Dems in the 2016 elections up and down the slate. See how the Congressional and state level elections turned out?

"Trump got more votes if you exclude something that I arbitrarily picked to make it so that Trump got more votes if I exclude it"

As to your second point, that's irrelevant. You made a silly claim of Dems being thoroughly rejected, which doesn't hold water since Dems got more votes. Unless you think landmasses are what's important in the US and not its people.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Trump got more votes if you exclude CA... big deal, a very left state voted very left... but that isn't even what I was getting at. Republicans wiped the floor with the Dems in the 2016 elections up and down the slate. See how the Congressional and state level elections turned out?

Yeah if you exclude the people who didn't vote for Trump more people voted for Trump.

Alright then.

Also if you look at the state level the GOP received a disproportionate amount of seats vs. the votes they actually got.

 

[SlowSpyder]

"Trump got more votes if you exclude something that I arbitrarily picked to make it so that Trump got more votes if I exclude it"

As to your second point, that's irrelevant. You made a silly claim of Dems being thoroughly rejected, which doesn't hold water since Dems got more votes. Unless you think landmasses are what's important in the US and not its people.

If you are trying to argue that the 2016 elections went well for the Dems then I'm not sure what to tell you. Your fimament bubble is strong. They lost widely, they were rejected on a large scale.

 

[Blackjack200]

So just trying to imagine the next couple of years...

- In November, Democrats narrowly take the house, Republicans narrowly retain the Senate

- Legislation is effectively blocked, but Trump is not affected that much since the administration is simply using the legal apparatus that was already in place to forward their agenda

- The SCOTUS overturns Roe V. Wade at the first chance they get. The original ruling was a right to privacy, so that privacy will be gone. In red states, doctors will be required to report pregnancies to the state, so women that get pregnant but want to keep open the option for abortion tourism or illicit abortion will not seek prenatal care.

- In the run up to the 2020 elections, there are massive voter registration purges. Polling places are closed, voting hours are shortened, and any challenge is quickly escalated to republican judges that protect the behavior.

- The elections are close with lower turnout than 2016 because of concerted Republican efforts. If Trump wins, elite Democrats and Liberals will scold people for not voting. If the Democrat wins, Trump will declare the elections invalid because of massive voter fraud. Democrats will sue, and the case will go to the... supreme court.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

"Trump got more votes if you exclude something that I arbitrarily picked to make it so that Trump got more votes if I exclude it"

As to your second point, that's irrelevant. You made a silly claim of Dems being thoroughly rejected, which doesn't hold water since Dems got more votes. Unless you think landmasses are what's important in the US and not its people.

I hate to tell you, but in this country the President isn't elected by majority vote, they are elected by an Electoral College.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

 

[UNCjigga]

You forget SCOTUS giving POTUS unlimited pardon power over state crimes.