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.
So you want all court nominees to testi-lie and pretend that the party not in power will vote in mass to stop him while the party in power will vote in mass to confirm him. Telling the truth is thus a disqualifying act.
Democrats confirmed Gorsuch. There was no question about his background. There were no women who came forward with allegations against him. We have to take the allegations against Kavanaugh seriously. And he was not telling the truth today.
Democrats confirmed Gorsuch. There was no question about his background. There were no women who came forward with allegations against him. We have to take the allegations against Kavanaugh seriously. And he was not telling the truth today.
That vote kept the status quo balance of power this potential justice is thought to shift the balance of power, just like the last high tech lynching after Thurgood Marshall died.
No they just want to see if they can hold out until after the election and then become the party in power able to enforce their will. Just like the Republicans did to President Obama when they held power. That is why they held on to their hold card until it was too late for a back up nominee before the congressional elections in November
Could be true. And perfectly fair. Just like the Republicans did to Obama. The Repubs should have picked a candidate as clean as the last one. This guy is not.
Could be true. And perfectly fair. Just like the Republicans did to Obama. The Repubs should have picked a candidate as clean as the last one. This guy is not.
Or he is clean as newly fallen snow, which under the American justice system, presumption of innocence he is. Unless you are politically incorrect and might change the direction of the Supreme Court and then a political player will step up at the last minute and say you did X and those against you will claim the accuser is as pure as Rosa Parks.
Could be true. And perfectly fair. Just like the Republicans did to Obama. The Repubs should have picked a candidate as clean as the last one. This guy is not.
Sure he is clean. The false accuser only dirties herself. If she really was ever assaulted, which I doubt, she is killing any credibility for people believing her if she does ever accuse the attacker. It's just that the stakes are higher for the criminal politicians on both sides of the aisle who know what's coming once Kavanaugh is confirmed.
It's Trump who wants to be dictator. It's Trump who wants to serve unlimited terms.
TRANSLATION: When I can't refute, or even answer, I lie about Republicans instead.
Quote:
It's the GOP who STOLE this SCJ nomination and hearing from the Obama administration. Deal with reality and get back to us.
It's always a hoot when Democrats, who treated their constituents so badly that the voters voted them out of a majority in the Senate (thus taking away the privilege of deciding who gets discussed, voted on etc.), still whine that somehow they are "owed" the privilege to making such decisions anyway.
Democrats had done enough to anger their constituents, that those constituents voted them out of the majority in the Senate. So they no longer had the votes in the committees they needed.
Yet we keep hearing, in regard to confirmation hearings for Garland, that the Republicans should have given them "what is rightfully theirs" and held hearings.
"What is rightfully theirs" is what the voters decided they should have. You got a problem with that?
Basically, the Democrats blew it.
Elections have consequences. One of them is that, if you lose, you can't dictate what the Senate does any more.
How are they supposed to judge him? The reps withheld so many files of his, that they pretty much have to judge him by his character. With so many clamoring to testify under oath against him and begging for the FBI to investigate him, what is one to think? If he is such a man of character, where are the files? Where is the FBI? The reps give very little to use. Do men of impeccable character usually have so many people willing to swear under threat of perjury that they are not men of character? How would we know if they are lying if there's no investigation? How can you presume innocence when the reps make him look so guilty?
Sure he is clean. The false accuser only dirties herself. If she really was ever assaulted, which I doubt, she is killing any credibility for people believing her if she does ever accuse the attacker. It's just that the stakes are higher for the criminal politicians on both sides of the aisle who know what's coming once Kavanaugh is confirmed.
Why would she come forward if it wasn't true. What does she have to gain. If Kavanaugh is confirmed then he dirties the whole supreme court and our country. And no he is not clean because his yearbook describes him and Georgetown prep accurately
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.
