Progressive turn a 180 degrees on Judge nomanation

[Coyote]

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.


The Dems controlled the Senate from 2007-2015.

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them?

Why'd the Dems leave so many vacancies from 2009-2015?

Wasn't under their total control. Read the article if you're really that concerned.

 

[Darkwind]

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

Excuses? I wasn't aware that pointing out that the Senate has allowed nominees to languish in limbo for months going on years was an excuse.

And it has been pointed out that there are 10 preceding nominations that have never had any action taken on them. That reaffirms My statement that this is no time limit on when the Senate must act on a nominee.

Not to mention the 100+ open seats for the federal judiciary that have gone to the wayside.

So you'll be fine if the Democrats in power decide to refuse to allow hearings for a nominee for a year until the next election? I don't see anything in those failed nominations that approach what was done with Garland nor was any SCOTUS nominee held up as long as his was. AT what point does "responsibility" become obstruction and when does it become detrimental to our country (not some political agenda)?

You pointed out the unfilled judicial vacancies...this never used to be an issue. Both sides worked together to produce candidates that would pass the process. That has gone to hell.

...and what about those 100 open seats? How did that come about?

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.


By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed. ​

Well, two things. Democrats confirmed 68 in 8 years. Trump has been President less than 3. So, give it time and we'll see if your numbers hold up. I, myself, have been uber critical of the Senate Republicans for not passing nominations of Trump's given they have done away with the filibuster rule. So, they have no excuse. Yet again, however; There is no time limit.

Second. If the Democrats wish to do the same, I would be a hypocrite to say otherwise. Still, I'll cross that bridge when it comes. As it stands, with the pure hatred and craziness coming from the left in these times, I don't see the Democrats getting control of the Senate anytime soon.

So, when they do, and a similar circumstance arises, look Me up.

Until then, acknowledge that your just pissed that the SCOTUS will not be open to judicial legislation anytime soon.

Pure hatred and crazyness is certainly coming from the right. You just happen to agree with the rightwing hate. Republicans only confirmed 22 of Obama's nominees.

I don't agree with any hate. But hate is not expressed by a difference of opinion. It is, however; demonstrated by the lack of civility and open hostility to those with whom one disagrees.

 

[candycorn]

So if the senate decides to never hold a hearing again, we will have no federal judiciary....period.

Doesn't this begin to violate the theory of checks and balances?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

I sense a wee tad of butthurt there.

 

[Darkwind]

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.


The Dems controlled the Senate from 2007-2015.

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them?

Why'd the Dems leave so many vacancies from 2009-2015?

Wasn't under their total control. Read the article if you're really that concerned.

What happened between Nov 2013 to when the Democrats lost control of the Senate? Lots of opportunities there.

 

[Darkwind]

So if the senate decides to never hold a hearing again, we will have no federal judiciary....period.

Doesn't this begin to violate the theory of checks and balances?

No, but it will jeopardize the Senators ability to get reelected.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.


The Dems controlled the Senate from 2007-2015.

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them?

Why'd the Dems leave so many vacancies from 2009-2015?

Wasn't under their total control. Read the article if you're really that concerned.

I read the article. I'm not concerned.

 

[Crepitus]

Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.

It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.



Now it changes.
At the time, then-Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont called on all members of the committee to be fair during the hearings and abstain from questioning the integrity or independence of President Obama’s nominee.

Republicans did just that, prompting Kagan to publicly thank then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Republicans for giving her “such respectful and expeditious consideration.”


During this week’s hearing – starting from the moment Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced Judge Kavanaugh and his family – the proceedings were interrupted by one Democratic senator after another, demanding a vote to delay the hearing. Then, like clockwork, came the shouts of protesters in the crowd.

If these childish antics and partisan outbursts appeared to be a well-coordinated effort on the part of Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of Kavanaugh, it’s because they were.

News organizations reported that on the eve of the hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats hosted a conference call with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, and plotted a “protest strategy” to disrupt the proceedings.

dOnald tRump's nominee is in no was shape or form the equal of Kagan just as tRump is not the equal of President Obama. Nominate someone who hasn't lied repeatedly under oath and who wasn't choosen solely for his/her political bent and you will get a fair hearing.

 

[Coyote]

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

Excuses? I wasn't aware that pointing out that the Senate has allowed nominees to languish in limbo for months going on years was an excuse.

And it has been pointed out that there are 10 preceding nominations that have never had any action taken on them. That reaffirms My statement that this is no time limit on when the Senate must act on a nominee.

Not to mention the 100+ open seats for the federal judiciary that have gone to the wayside.

So you'll be fine if the Democrats in power decide to refuse to allow hearings for a nominee for a year until the next election? I don't see anything in those failed nominations that approach what was done with Garland nor was any SCOTUS nominee held up as long as his was. AT what point does "responsibility" become obstruction and when does it become detrimental to our country (not some political agenda)?

You pointed out the unfilled judicial vacancies...this never used to be an issue. Both sides worked together to produce candidates that would pass the process. That has gone to hell.

...and what about those 100 open seats? How did that come about?

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.


By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed. ​

Well, two things. Democrats confirmed 68 in 8 years. Trump has been President less than 3. So, give it time and we'll see if your numbers hold up. I, myself, have been uber critical of the Senate Republicans for not passing nominations of Trump's given they have done away with the filibuster rule. So, they have no excuse. Yet again, however; There is no time limit.

Second. If the Democrats wish to do the same, I would be a hypocrite to say otherwise. Still, I'll cross that bridge when it comes. As it stands, with the pure hatred and craziness coming from the left in these times, I don't see the Democrats getting control of the Senate anytime soon.

So, when they do, and a similar circumstance arises, look Me up.

Until then, acknowledge that your just pissed that the SCOTUS will not be open to judicial legislation anytime soon.

Pure hatred and crazyness is certainly coming from the right. You just happen to agree with the rightwing hate. Republicans only confirmed 22 of Obama's nominees.

I don't agree with any hate. But hate is not expressed by a difference of opinion. It is, however; demonstrated by the lack of civility and open hostility to those with whom one disagrees.

Like when Trump attacks the media, mocks disabled reporters, calls politicians and leaders juvenile names?

 

[Coyote]

Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.

It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.



Now it changes.
At the time, then-Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont called on all members of the committee to be fair during the hearings and abstain from questioning the integrity or independence of President Obama’s nominee.

Republicans did just that, prompting Kagan to publicly thank then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Republicans for giving her “such respectful and expeditious consideration.”


During this week’s hearing – starting from the moment Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced Judge Kavanaugh and his family – the proceedings were interrupted by one Democratic senator after another, demanding a vote to delay the hearing. Then, like clockwork, came the shouts of protesters in the crowd.

If these childish antics and partisan outbursts appeared to be a well-coordinated effort on the part of Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of Kavanaugh, it’s because they were.

News organizations reported that on the eve of the hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats hosted a conference call with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, and plotted a “protest strategy” to disrupt the proceedings.

dOnald tRump's nominee is in no was shape or form the equal of Kagan just as tRump is not the equal of President Obama. Nominate someone who hasn't lied repeatedly under oath and who wasn't choosen solely for his/her political bent and you will get a fair hearing.

Actually Trump's nominee is fully qualified for the position.

 

[candycorn]

So if the senate decides to never hold a hearing again, we will have no federal judiciary....period.

Doesn't this begin to violate the theory of checks and balances?

No, but it will jeopardize the Senators ability to get reelected.

You think any senator from Texas who rises to the position of Majority Leader (as Cornyn may do) is in jeopardy of losing his seat if he holds no hearings on the next Democrat's nominations to the high court? They'll have his mug on their currency when they finally secede.

 

[Crepitus]

Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.

It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.



Now it changes.
At the time, then-Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont called on all members of the committee to be fair during the hearings and abstain from questioning the integrity or independence of President Obama’s nominee.

Republicans did just that, prompting Kagan to publicly thank then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Republicans for giving her “such respectful and expeditious consideration.”


During this week’s hearing – starting from the moment Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced Judge Kavanaugh and his family – the proceedings were interrupted by one Democratic senator after another, demanding a vote to delay the hearing. Then, like clockwork, came the shouts of protesters in the crowd.

If these childish antics and partisan outbursts appeared to be a well-coordinated effort on the part of Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of Kavanaugh, it’s because they were.

News organizations reported that on the eve of the hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats hosted a conference call with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, and plotted a “protest strategy” to disrupt the proceedings.

dOnald tRump's nominee is in no was shape or form the equal of Kagan just as tRump is not the equal of President Obama. Nominate someone who hasn't lied repeatedly under oath and who wasn't choosen solely for his/her political bent and you will get a fair hearing.

Actually Trump's nominee is fully qualified for the position.

Except for the fact that he was choosen for his ideology rather than his qualifications and that whole perjury thing sure.

 

[Darkwind]

So if the senate decides to never hold a hearing again, we will have no federal judiciary....period.

Doesn't this begin to violate the theory of checks and balances?

No, but it will jeopardize the Senators ability to get reelected.

You think any senator from Texas who rises to the position of Majority Leader (as Cornyn may do) is in jeopardy of losing his seat if he holds no hearings on the next Democrat's nominations to the high court? They'll have his mug on their currency when they finally secede.

We'll see, won't we?

 

[Darkwind]

Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.

It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.



Now it changes.
At the time, then-Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont called on all members of the committee to be fair during the hearings and abstain from questioning the integrity or independence of President Obama’s nominee.

Republicans did just that, prompting Kagan to publicly thank then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Republicans for giving her “such respectful and expeditious consideration.”


During this week’s hearing – starting from the moment Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced Judge Kavanaugh and his family – the proceedings were interrupted by one Democratic senator after another, demanding a vote to delay the hearing. Then, like clockwork, came the shouts of protesters in the crowd.

If these childish antics and partisan outbursts appeared to be a well-coordinated effort on the part of Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of Kavanaugh, it’s because they were.

News organizations reported that on the eve of the hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats hosted a conference call with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, and plotted a “protest strategy” to disrupt the proceedings.

dOnald tRump's nominee is in no was shape or form the equal of Kagan just as tRump is not the equal of President Obama. Nominate someone who hasn't lied repeatedly under oath and who wasn't choosen solely for his/her political bent and you will get a fair hearing.

Actually Trump's nominee is fully qualified for the position.

Except for the fact that he was choosen for his ideology rather than his qualifications and that whole perjury thing sure.

No perjury, but his qualifications are impeccable. Even the Democrats prior to Trump though so.

After all, with over 300 opinions as a sitting judge, one would think you could come up with a jurisprudence reason why he is not qualified.

 

[Darkwind]

Excuses? I wasn't aware that pointing out that the Senate has allowed nominees to languish in limbo for months going on years was an excuse.

And it has been pointed out that there are 10 preceding nominations that have never had any action taken on them. That reaffirms My statement that this is no time limit on when the Senate must act on a nominee.

Not to mention the 100+ open seats for the federal judiciary that have gone to the wayside.

So you'll be fine if the Democrats in power decide to refuse to allow hearings for a nominee for a year until the next election? I don't see anything in those failed nominations that approach what was done with Garland nor was any SCOTUS nominee held up as long as his was. AT what point does "responsibility" become obstruction and when does it become detrimental to our country (not some political agenda)?

You pointed out the unfilled judicial vacancies...this never used to be an issue. Both sides worked together to produce candidates that would pass the process. That has gone to hell.

...and what about those 100 open seats? How did that come about?

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.


By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed. ​

Well, two things. Democrats confirmed 68 in 8 years. Trump has been President less than 3. So, give it time and we'll see if your numbers hold up. I, myself, have been uber critical of the Senate Republicans for not passing nominations of Trump's given they have done away with the filibuster rule. So, they have no excuse. Yet again, however; There is no time limit.

Second. If the Democrats wish to do the same, I would be a hypocrite to say otherwise. Still, I'll cross that bridge when it comes. As it stands, with the pure hatred and craziness coming from the left in these times, I don't see the Democrats getting control of the Senate anytime soon.

So, when they do, and a similar circumstance arises, look Me up.

Until then, acknowledge that your just pissed that the SCOTUS will not be open to judicial legislation anytime soon.

Pure hatred and crazyness is certainly coming from the right. You just happen to agree with the rightwing hate. Republicans only confirmed 22 of Obama's nominees.

I don't agree with any hate. But hate is not expressed by a difference of opinion. It is, however; demonstrated by the lack of civility and open hostility to those with whom one disagrees.

Like when Trump attacks the media, mocks disabled reporters, calls politicians and leaders juvenile names?

What does that have to do with Me, other conservatives; more importantly, with the nominee?

 

[Coyote]

So you'll be fine if the Democrats in power decide to refuse to allow hearings for a nominee for a year until the next election? I don't see anything in those failed nominations that approach what was done with Garland nor was any SCOTUS nominee held up as long as his was. AT what point does "responsibility" become obstruction and when does it become detrimental to our country (not some political agenda)?

You pointed out the unfilled judicial vacancies...this never used to be an issue. Both sides worked together to produce candidates that would pass the process. That has gone to hell.

...and what about those 100 open seats? How did that come about?

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.


By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed. ​

Well, two things. Democrats confirmed 68 in 8 years. Trump has been President less than 3. So, give it time and we'll see if your numbers hold up. I, myself, have been uber critical of the Senate Republicans for not passing nominations of Trump's given they have done away with the filibuster rule. So, they have no excuse. Yet again, however; There is no time limit.

Second. If the Democrats wish to do the same, I would be a hypocrite to say otherwise. Still, I'll cross that bridge when it comes. As it stands, with the pure hatred and craziness coming from the left in these times, I don't see the Democrats getting control of the Senate anytime soon.

So, when they do, and a similar circumstance arises, look Me up.

Until then, acknowledge that your just pissed that the SCOTUS will not be open to judicial legislation anytime soon.

Pure hatred and crazyness is certainly coming from the right. You just happen to agree with the rightwing hate. Republicans only confirmed 22 of Obama's nominees.

I don't agree with any hate. But hate is not expressed by a difference of opinion. It is, however; demonstrated by the lack of civility and open hostility to those with whom one disagrees.

Like when Trump attacks the media, mocks disabled reporters, calls politicians and leaders juvenile names?

What does that have to do with Me, other conservatives; more importantly, with the nominee?

Everything. When conservatives whine about lack of civility...they tend to forget how they have fostered and rewarded exactly that behavior.

 

[Darkwind]

Well, two things. Democrats confirmed 68 in 8 years. Trump has been President less than 3. So, give it time and we'll see if your numbers hold up. I, myself, have been uber critical of the Senate Republicans for not passing nominations of Trump's given they have done away with the filibuster rule. So, they have no excuse. Yet again, however; There is no time limit.

Second. If the Democrats wish to do the same, I would be a hypocrite to say otherwise. Still, I'll cross that bridge when it comes. As it stands, with the pure hatred and craziness coming from the left in these times, I don't see the Democrats getting control of the Senate anytime soon.

So, when they do, and a similar circumstance arises, look Me up.

Until then, acknowledge that your just pissed that the SCOTUS will not be open to judicial legislation anytime soon.

Pure hatred and crazyness is certainly coming from the right. You just happen to agree with the rightwing hate. Republicans only confirmed 22 of Obama's nominees.

I don't agree with any hate. But hate is not expressed by a difference of opinion. It is, however; demonstrated by the lack of civility and open hostility to those with whom one disagrees.

Like when Trump attacks the media, mocks disabled reporters, calls politicians and leaders juvenile names?

What does that have to do with Me, other conservatives; more importantly, with the nominee?

Everything. When conservatives whine about lack of civility...they tend to forget how they have fostered and rewarded exactly that behavior.

Okay, cite specifically how I have fostered and rewarded that kind of behavior. Assuming of course, that simple disagreement on issues constitute whining.

Then cite the whining and incivility of the nominee.

 

[Coyote]

Pure hatred and crazyness is certainly coming from the right. You just happen to agree with the rightwing hate. Republicans only confirmed 22 of Obama's nominees.

I don't agree with any hate. But hate is not expressed by a difference of opinion. It is, however; demonstrated by the lack of civility and open hostility to those with whom one disagrees.

Like when Trump attacks the media, mocks disabled reporters, calls politicians and leaders juvenile names?

What does that have to do with Me, other conservatives; more importantly, with the nominee?

Everything. When conservatives whine about lack of civility...they tend to forget how they have fostered and rewarded exactly that behavior.

Okay, cite specifically how I have fostered and rewarded that kind of behavior. Assuming of course, that simple disagreement on issues constitute whining.

Then cite the whining and incivility of the nominee.

I am not talking about you specifically or the nominee. But I am teaming about the President who condemned rude behavior yet engages in it daily and the conservatives who support it.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't agree with any hate. But hate is not expressed by a difference of opinion. It is, however; demonstrated by the lack of civility and open hostility to those with whom one disagrees.

Like when Trump attacks the media, mocks disabled reporters, calls politicians and leaders juvenile names?

What does that have to do with Me, other conservatives; more importantly, with the nominee?

Everything. When conservatives whine about lack of civility...they tend to forget how they have fostered and rewarded exactly that behavior.

Okay, cite specifically how I have fostered and rewarded that kind of behavior. Assuming of course, that simple disagreement on issues constitute whining.

Then cite the whining and incivility of the nominee.

I am not talking about you specifically or the nominee. But I am teaming about the President who condemned rude behavior yet engages in it daily and the conservatives who support it.

Have you condemned rude behavior from the left? There is a veritable smorgasbord of incivility arising from that quarter.

 

[Coyote]

Like when Trump attacks the media, mocks disabled reporters, calls politicians and leaders juvenile names?

What does that have to do with Me, other conservatives; more importantly, with the nominee?

Everything. When conservatives whine about lack of civility...they tend to forget how they have fostered and rewarded exactly that behavior.

Okay, cite specifically how I have fostered and rewarded that kind of behavior. Assuming of course, that simple disagreement on issues constitute whining.

Then cite the whining and incivility of the nominee.

I am not talking about you specifically or the nominee. But I am teaming about the President who condemned rude behavior yet engages in it daily and the conservatives who support it.

Have you condemned rude behavior from the left? There is a veritable smorgasbord of incivility arising from that quarter.

You mean like antifa’s behavior or harassment of conservative speakers in colleges? Yes.

Have you condemned rude behavior from the right?