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.
Why is it so important to have this guy on the Supreme who has never tried a case. Was this the best they could find or is there some other reason why a more experienced conservative nominee would not do?
1. He's a constitutionalist.
2. The peeing match hit job the left/far left set up couldn't be allowed to succeed.
Why is it so important to have this guy on the Supreme who has never tried a case. Was this the best they could find or is there some other reason why a more experienced conservative nominee would not do?
Twelve years on the second highest court in the country with an impeccable reputation isn't good enough for you? That's too bad.
Why is it so important to have this guy on the Supreme who has never tried a case. Was this the best they could find or is there some other reason why a more experienced conservative nominee would not do?
He was not on the 2nd most powerful court in the United States? Good lord folks....the left has lost it....
Trump said the FBI has "free rein," that was a lie. The White House limited the scope and handcuffed the bureau from conducting a full and unimpeded investigation.
Several witnesses and Yale classmates who wanted to talk to the FBI were not interviewed.
This entire investigation was a sham, the GOP never cared about getting to the bottom of the allegations.
They're ignorant, and continue to show it on a daily basis.
They're definitely showing they know absolutely nothing about Kavanaugh, the man they have decided shouldn't be seated on the court. I would be embarrassed if I were them but apparently, they seem perfectly fine with this utter lack of knowledge.
Mitch McConnell went out of his way this morning to ensure that the press could not even be in a physical position to see which senators are entering the room and reviewing the FBI report.
There's a good chance that the American people will NOT be able to see the FBI report, and also a good chance that we won't even know WHO reviewed the report.
Mitch McConnell went out of his way this morning to ensure that the press could not even be in a physical position to see which senators are entering the room and reviewing the FBI report.
There's a good chance that the American people will NOT be able to see the FBI report, and also a good chance that we won't even know WHO reviewed the report.
Concur. I've noticed several Democrats on here who are fully in support of what was done to Kavanaugh and cite Garland as if there is an equivalency. I think, to some, they truly believe it is no different which is pretty disturbing as one was political gamesmanship and the other actually personally injured and hurt people. I simply could never be the kind of person who supports the kind of actions the Democrats engaged in this last week just to win a political battle.
Since I began reading, there's been minimal discussion of Feinstein tactics but instead most (including those who oppose Kavanaugh's nomination) have denounced political "gamesmanship" that is perceived to be unfair. Now admittedly what is fair in one person's eyes can be dramatically immoral in another.
I missed the thread beginning and maybe there was more tactical discussion there. For offhand, I can think of one specific poster and one post that praised Feinstein et al. Thinking more ... yes, there have been a few references to "Garland payback."
Please, though, do not miss or mischaracterize the larger issue. Garland has been discussed in the context of increased partisanship (including Bork) that is spreading from the executive and legislatives branches to the judicial. That Garland received no hearing and Kavanaugh was castigated during his are, of course, not equivalent with additional issues in the Kavanaugh matter.
Once Ford came forward and she and Kavanaugh testified in the Senate before the American people, that was an established fact. It came into existence and what both said was heard and processed by millions of Americans.
Sure, neither Ford nor as Feinstein should have brought forward this accusation mainly because there was no independent corroboration with issue not a matter of "believing women" due to the long time gap. But do not conflate their decisions with how folks responded to their testimony. Two separate issues.
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.
