Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good. That puts you on the outs with the AFL-CIO, NAACP, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, GLAAD, Sierra Club, and on and on.
Are you a theocratic, homophobic, xenophobic, corporate, sexist, racist shill for RW nutjob
I assume you say that as a democrat...I've seen many democrats on other political forums say that, of the four possible choices, Kavanaugh was the most acceptable to the left. He doesn't really have an interest in readdressing abortion or gay marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
Good. That puts you on the outs with the AFL-CIO, NAACP, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, GLAAD, Sierra Club, and on and on.
Are you a theocratic, homophobic, xenophobic, corporate, sexist, racist shill for RW nutjob
For the record, I have recently begun to identify strongly with the Democratic party.
Also, for the record I am fundamentally opposed to abortion on moral and ethical grounds, I think it is murder. There may be cases where an abortion is justified, as in when certain death of the child and/or the mother is expected without intervention.
My sympathies hearken back to the days of FDR when generally most people in both parties thought abortion was wrong and also that Democrats came to see government could be a positive force for good.
I believe strongly in national health care (Medicare for all would be sweet) and social security and I don't think (from what I have read) that Kavanaugh is a big threat to those programs.
I see that the recent tax policies based upon 'trickle down' economics are damaging to the economic well being of the ordinary working people, and the wealth and earnings gap is getting much worse. Kavanaugh and I may disagree on this.
As for gay marriage, as far as I am concerned the state should refrain from religious consideration in this matter, a state sanctioned marriage does not have to be recognized by any church and churches can not tell the state which people can be married and get the tax rate. Personally I feel that marriage between two committed people is better than sleeping around, it is safer and contributes to financial stability. I think this is a state issue.
I don't fit easily into any box, but I align more closely to conservative Democrats than any other, I could possibly be called a Blue Dog Democrat by some, but I am not sure myself if this would be correct.
For the record, I have recently begun to identify strongly with the Democratic party.
Also, for the record I am fundamentally opposed to abortion on moral and ethical grounds, I think it is murder. There may be cases where an abortion is justified, as in when certain death of the child and/or the mother is expected without intervention.
My sympathies hearken back to the days of FDR when generally most people in both parties thought abortion was wrong and also that Democrats came to see government could be a positive force for good.
I believe strongly in national health care (Medicare for all would be sweet) and social security and I don't think (from what I have read) that Kavanaugh is a big threat to those programs.
I see that the recent tax policies based upon 'trickle down' economics are damaging to the economic well being of the ordinary working people, and the wealth and earnings gap is getting much worse. Kavanaugh and I may disagree on this.
As for gay marriage, as far as I am concerned the state should refrain from religious consideration in this matter, a state sanctioned marriage does not have to be recognized by any church and churches can not tell the state which people can be married and get the tax rate. Personally I feel that marriage between two committed people is better than sleeping around, it is safer and contributes to financial stability. I think this is a state issue.
I don't fit easily into any box, but I align more closely to conservative Democrats than any other, I could possibly be called a Blue Dog Democrat by some, but I am not sure myself if this would be correct.
It wouldn't be. Blue Dog Democrats are dying, and close to extinct. "Blue Dog" does, after all, modify the noun, "Democrat"--and their party has drifted so far left, it's fallen off the edge.
It wouldn't be. Blue Dog Democrats are dying, and close to extinct. "Blue Dog" does, after all, modify the noun, "Democrat"--and their party has drifted so far left, it's fallen off the edge.
No matter.
I have walked away from the Republican party, for good this time, and glad of it.
I have walked away from the Republican party, for good this time, and glad of it.
Same. I don't even recognize the GOP anymore. Not under Trump.
Republican Congressman who I used to respect just stand to the side in fear of losing their jobs and just let Trump do and say whatever. Only those retiring have the gall to say anything. It's sickening.
Trump truly did attempt to hijack the republican party, and he had enough simple-minded voters supporting him to do it.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh should get 80+ votes. He won't of course, because that isn't the way things are now and more's the pity.
The "Advise and Consent" clause of the U.S. Constitution isn't so the U.S. Senate can substitute their views on the judiciary for the President's. The Senate is supposed to advise and give their consent on whether or not the candidate is qualified from a temperament and understanding of the law viewpoint. How a nominee might rule on a case isn't supposed to enter into the equation. Appointment of judges is the sole prerogative of the President.
Everyone in the U.S. Senate knew exactly what kind of activist justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was going to be when Bill Clinton appointed her to the SCOTUS, yet she was still confirmed 96-3 in the Senate. Steven Breyer was confirmed 87-9.
Republicans were willing to offer such deference to Clinton's prerogative despite what was done to Judge Bork and Judge, now Justice Thomas.
Democrats should vote en masse for Judge Kavanaugh to show that they will end the politicization of the courts and return to basing votes on qualifications alone.
The question is will the Democrats decide to behave rationally, maturely and responsibly for a change, or are they going to continue with their hysterical shrieking routine.
IMO, the democrats in the senate have so politicized the process and are so viciously, anti-Trump, they don't fully realize how petty and mean-spirited they appear.
People aren't as stupid as these political hacks believe they are --- and will likely (hopefully) pay the price in the mid-terms (and beyond). It's hard to imagine that even people who call themselves democrats -- can continue to blind themselves to this unhinged, totally self-serving bunch of anti-Americans!
More right wing nonsense. Giving any room to the President was ended by the Republicans with Merrick Garland. So the question is simply can the Republicans produce 50 votes. We shall see. But he has a voluminous record which may well prevent his confirmation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh Should Get 80+ Votes
