Why are Republicans so upset about Kavanaugh? Brett Kavanaugh & Niel Gorsuch are nothing special.

[oreo]

You're not watching CNN--that's very clear.

What date did it happen?

Who's house did it happen in?

I would iimagine that under driect public testimony they would not want her to DISCLOSE the specific address of the house that this happened in for OBVIOUS reasons. As for the date--do you remember what you had for LUNCH, on Wednesday the 18th of December 1984? Of course not.

My husband and I got in a serious car accident years ago, and my husband was taken off, in a flight for life helicopter.. I can give every detail of someone hitting us head on--but I cannot remember the EXACT date. There are some things that when you have been tramatized you will forget.

If Republicans try to pull that out of this hat--they're going to go down in a ball of flames.

My lunch has nothing to do with accusations of a crime. And as for your first point, what a fucking cop out. She has admitted she doesn't "remember the house".

The difference is if you are accusing someone of an act like this, and you want to ruin their life over it, you better have information that confirms it happened.

How is he supposed to defend himself if she can't fix a time and location?

How would you feel if YOUR life was about to be ruined based on this level of evidence?

I'm sure you would be fine over it, you worthless prog hack-twat.

Well that's what happens when people are tramatized. Like I explained before you will be able to remember the trama--but then years later--you won't remember dates--because that wasn't burned into your memory--only the act that caused the trama was.

She is a credible woman, very intelligence and a doctor--and you're not going to get away with a Date & Address and say she's lying. If Republicans try that one, and confirm Kavanaugh--you're going to see phycologists lined up 24/7 on all media networks explaining the same thing I just did.

Excuses Excuses. It's amazing the things she forgot are all the things that would allow BK to maybe defend himself? That would create a chance he wasn't actually there?

She' only credible in your eyes because you are a prog hack. She got called out on the fear of flying thing and a few other things.

Go ahead and confirm Kavanaugh, I really don't give a rats ass--but if they do you may see the Senate change hands this coming November. They've already pissed off women in this country enough--and they are the largest voting block in this country. They also vote more often than men do.

If Republicans want to put some more nails in their coffin, let em. Go through this link and scroll through the many pages of pictures, you'll probably find your home state in one of them.
Woman's march pictures

 

[Dana7360]

we're upset because a man's life has been destroyed and his dreams crushed. this is not about politics. shame on you for thinking like that

politically, the "smart" thing to do is to appoint Amy Coney Barrett because Democrats would go after her catholic faith making themselves look like fools. i wanted Barret

Sandra Day O'Connor was the last SCOTUS nominee on the Republican side of the isle, in 1981. 37 YEARS ago, under Ronald Reagan.

I doubt you'll ever see a Catholic appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.--We already had a run in with Rick Santorum, a devote Catholic and he didn't go far.

Santorum is actually on video recording stating that States have the "right" to ban birth control contraceptives, meaning your state legislature or your next door neighbor, via a ballot will decide for you if you can use them or not-- Santorum is still arguing with a 1965 Supreme Court decision--(Griswold v Connecticut)
Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy | HuffPost
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

It would have been wise for Republicans to nominate a woman to the SCOTUS--just to get their misogyny rating to move up a little out of the ditch.. But as we see again, Republicans really don't have good instincts, nor foresight.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude but you're wrong again.

We just saw a catholic be appointed and confirmed as a supreme court judge. That was trump's neil gorsuch.

In fact 6 of the 9 judges on the supreme court are catholic.

The other three are jewish.

Sotomayor is catholic. Obama put her there. All the other catholic judges were put there by either the first bush the bush boy or trump. The other 3 judges who are jewish were put there by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

There are no protestants or any other religions represented.

We all have seen several catholic judges be nominated and confirmed for the supreme court. I don't understand why you think that no one has seen a catholic judge be nominated for the supreme court.

Maybe it was a typo but if not, please do some research before you post.

Here's the religious break down of the judges on the supreme court and what president put them there.

thomas catholic bush the first
Gingsburg jewish Clinton
Breyer jewish Clinton
roberts catholic bush boy
alito catholic bush boy
Sotomayor catholic Obama
Kagan jewish Obama
gorsuch catholic. trump

 

[basquebromance]

"Asked a White House source if he likes Kavanaugh's performance. His answer: "No. I'm loving it.""

 

[Dana7360]

why didnt Trump just pick Amy Comey Barrett? who steered him to pick a Bushie? someone in his administration steered him in that direction and knew that Dr Fraud was gonna make up some allegations

where was Avenatti in 1981 anyway? what was he doing back then?

I don't know what Mr. Avenatti has to do with your post or any of this discussion but Avenatti was born in 1971.

Michael Avenatti was a 10 year old boy in 1981.

You'll have to ask him how he like elementary school in 1981.

 

[Polishprince]

Republicans campaigned on the SCOTUS nominee in 2016, after making certain that Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland didn't get a chance. Why? Because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked. Well as it turns out, Hillary Clinton may have picked Niel Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh as her nominee, because she voted to confirm both of them for Federal District court positions.

In fact, Hillary Clinton along with Barack Obama actually voted for both of them, as they came out of the G.W. Bush administration as Federal District Court judges in year 2006, when Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and could have easily rejected them. This while Senate Democrats were historically turning down a lot of G.W's nominee's. IOW--Both have already run the Democrat gaunlet and passed with flying colors.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators

Brett Kavanaugh - Wikipedia

Anthony Scalia NOT'S !!!

In fact here are the Democrats that confirmed both Brett Kavanuagh & Niel Gorsuch in 2006 for Federal District Court of Appeals positions.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone. The only reason Democrats tried to block him, is because they were upset that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Brett Kavanuagh only caught Trump's attention, because he once stated that Presidents shouldn't undergo prosecution while they're in office. But there is no such thing as prosecution of a sitting President anyway--we have an impeachment process to rid ourselves of criminal and inept behavior of a President.
Analysis | Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

So the question is?
Since women have a very unfavorable opinon of Trump, (7 in 10) would it be wiser for Republicans to go ahead with an investigation & or drop Kavanaugh for a woman nominee?
Gallup Poll: 7 in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

Actually the Republicans were BARRED from considering Garland's nomination, as to do so would have been a violation of the beloved Biden Rule. Biden, of course, was the Senate's president's at the time.

As far as a woman nominee for the court after this embarrassing performance by the libs?

President Trump would really have to pick a woman with balls that would attack the liberals from Minute One of the confirmation process.

Someone like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

 

[Polishprince]

Any doubts that I may have harbored about Kav are long gone. The treatment he has received from the Far Left during this procedure has been so despicable, he will be great on the court getting his Revenge against those bastards for 40 years.

 

[oreo]

Republicans campaigned on the SCOTUS nominee in 2016, after making certain that Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland didn't get a chance. Why? Because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked. Well as it turns out, Hillary Clinton may have picked Niel Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh as her nominee, because she voted to confirm both of them for Federal District court positions.

In fact, Hillary Clinton along with Barack Obama actually voted for both of them, as they came out of the G.W. Bush administration as Federal District Court judges in year 2006, when Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and could have easily rejected them. This while Senate Democrats were historically turning down a lot of G.W's nominee's. IOW--Both have already run the Democrat gaunlet and passed with flying colors.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators

Brett Kavanaugh - Wikipedia

Anthony Scalia NOT'S !!!

In fact here are the Democrats that confirmed both Brett Kavanuagh & Niel Gorsuch in 2006 for Federal District Court of Appeals positions.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone. The only reason Democrats tried to block him, is because they were upset that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Brett Kavanuagh only caught Trump's attention, because he once stated that Presidents shouldn't undergo prosecution while they're in office. But there is no such thing as prosecution of a sitting President anyway--we have an impeachment process to rid ourselves of criminal and inept behavior of a President.
Analysis | Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

So the question is?
Since women have a very unfavorable opinon of Trump, (7 in 10) would it be wiser for Republicans to go ahead with an investigation & or drop Kavanaugh for a woman nominee?
Gallup Poll: 7 in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

Actually the Republicans were BARRED from considering Garland's nomination, as to do so would have been a violation of the beloved Biden Rule. Biden, of course, was the Senate's president's at the time.

As far as a woman nominee for the court after this embarrassing performance by the libs?

President Trump would really have to pick a woman with balls that would attack the liberals from Minute One of the confirmation process.

Someone like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

Ann Cloutler & Michelle Malkin aren't Federal District Court Judges--dumbass. You'll have to provide a credibile--verifiable link to your claims that Republicans were barred from confirming Merrick Garland--

otherwise as alwa

Republicans campaigned on the SCOTUS nominee in 2016, after making certain that Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland didn't get a chance. Why? Because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked. Well as it turns out, Hillary Clinton may have picked Niel Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh as her nominee, because she voted to confirm both of them for Federal District court positions.

In fact, Hillary Clinton along with Barack Obama actually voted for both of them, as they came out of the G.W. Bush administration as Federal District Court judges in year 2006, when Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and could have easily rejected them. This while Senate Democrats were historically turning down a lot of G.W's nominee's. IOW--Both have already run the Democrat gaunlet and passed with flying colors.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators

Brett Kavanaugh - Wikipedia

Anthony Scalia NOT'S !!!

In fact here are the Democrats that confirmed both Brett Kavanuagh & Niel Gorsuch in 2006 for Federal District Court of Appeals positions.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone. The only reason Democrats tried to block him, is because they were upset that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Brett Kavanuagh only caught Trump's attention, because he once stated that Presidents shouldn't undergo prosecution while they're in office. But there is no such thing as prosecution of a sitting President anyway--we have an impeachment process to rid ourselves of criminal and inept behavior of a President.
Analysis | Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

So the question is?
Since women have a very unfavorable opinon of Trump, (7 in 10) would it be wiser for Republicans to go ahead with an investigation & or drop Kavanaugh for a woman nominee?
Gallup Poll: 7 in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

Actually the Republicans were BARRED from considering Garland's nomination, as to do so would have been a violation of the beloved Biden Rule. Biden, of course, was the Senate's president's at the time.

As far as a woman nominee for the court after this embarrassing performance by the libs?

President Trump would really have to pick a woman with balls that would attack the liberals from Minute One of the confirmation process.

Someone like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

The Trump tards never cease to AMAZE. Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin are NOT Federal District court judges--

As far as your claim that Republicans were barred from confirming Merrick Garland. You'll have to provide a credible, verifiable link to that claim otherwise it goes into the file

 

[Polishprince]

The Trump tards never cease to AMAZE. Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin are NOT Federal District court judges--

As far as your claim that Republicans were barred from confirming Merrick Garland. You'll have to provide a credible, verifiable link to that claim otherwise it goes into the file

You don't have to be a federal court judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

No requirement in the constitution for that.

The Biden Rule was enacted in 1992.


https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sit...pload/SCOTUS, 03-24-16, 1992 Biden Speech.pdf

 

[yiostheoy]

Republicans campaigned on the SCOTUS nominee in 2016, after making certain that Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland didn't get a chance. Why? Because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked. Well as it turns out, Hillary Clinton may have picked Niel Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh as her nominee, because she voted to confirm both of them for Federal District court positions.

In fact, Hillary Clinton along with Barack Obama actually voted for both of them, as they came out of the G.W. Bush administration as Federal District Court judges in year 2006, when Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and could have easily rejected them. This while Senate Democrats were historically turning down a lot of G.W's nominee's. IOW--Both have already run the Democrat gaunlet and passed with flying colors.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators

Brett Kavanaugh - Wikipedia

Anthony Scalia NOT'S !!!

In fact here are the Democrats that confirmed both Brett Kavanuagh & Niel Gorsuch in 2006 for Federal District Court of Appeals positions.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone. The only reason Democrats tried to block him, is because they were upset that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Brett Kavanuagh only caught Trump's attention, because he once stated that Presidents shouldn't undergo prosecution while they're in office. But there is no such thing as prosecution of a sitting President anyway--we have an impeachment process to rid ourselves of criminal and inept behavior of a President.
Analysis | Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

So the question is?
Since women have a very unfavorable opinon of Trump, (7 in 10) would it be wiser for Republicans to go ahead with an investigation & or drop Kavanaugh for a woman nominee?
Gallup Poll: 7 in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

Paybacks for Garland.

 

[Polishprince]

Republicans campaigned on the SCOTUS nominee in 2016, after making certain that Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland didn't get a chance. Why? Because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked. Well as it turns out, Hillary Clinton may have picked Niel Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh as her nominee, because she voted to confirm both of them for Federal District court positions.

In fact, Hillary Clinton along with Barack Obama actually voted for both of them, as they came out of the G.W. Bush administration as Federal District Court judges in year 2006, when Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and could have easily rejected them. This while Senate Democrats were historically turning down a lot of G.W's nominee's. IOW--Both have already run the Democrat gaunlet and passed with flying colors.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators

Brett Kavanaugh - Wikipedia

Anthony Scalia NOT'S !!!

In fact here are the Democrats that confirmed both Brett Kavanuagh & Niel Gorsuch in 2006 for Federal District Court of Appeals positions.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone. The only reason Democrats tried to block him, is because they were upset that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Brett Kavanuagh only caught Trump's attention, because he once stated that Presidents shouldn't undergo prosecution while they're in office. But there is no such thing as prosecution of a sitting President anyway--we have an impeachment process to rid ourselves of criminal and inept behavior of a President.
Analysis | Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

So the question is?
Since women have a very unfavorable opinon of Trump, (7 in 10) would it be wiser for Republicans to go ahead with an investigation & or drop Kavanaugh for a woman nominee?
Gallup Poll: 7 in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

Paybacks for Garland.

Garland wasn't falsely accused of attempt rape, flashing or organizing Rape Train Parties.

No one slandered him, or tried to destroy his life.

 

[Polishprince]

The Trump tards never cease to AMAZE. Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin are NOT Federal District court judges--

As far as your claim that Republicans were barred from confirming Merrick Garland. You'll have to provide a credible, verifiable link to that claim otherwise it goes into the file

You don't have to be a federal court judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

No requirement in the constitution for that.

The Biden Rule was enacted in 1992.


https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/SCOTUS, 03-24-16, 1992 Biden Speech.pdf

No less than 40 Supreme Court Justices had ZERO judicial experience before joining the court.

 

[oreo]

Republicans campaigned on the SCOTUS nominee in 2016, after making certain that Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland didn't get a chance. Why? Because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked. Well as it turns out, Hillary Clinton may have picked Niel Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh as her nominee, because she voted to confirm both of them for Federal District court positions.

In fact, Hillary Clinton along with Barack Obama actually voted for both of them, as they came out of the G.W. Bush administration as Federal District Court judges in year 2006, when Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and could have easily rejected them. This while Senate Democrats were historically turning down a lot of G.W's nominee's. IOW--Both have already run the Democrat gaunlet and passed with flying colors.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators

Brett Kavanaugh - Wikipedia

Anthony Scalia NOT'S !!!

In fact here are the Democrats that confirmed both Brett Kavanuagh & Niel Gorsuch in 2006 for Federal District Court of Appeals positions.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone. The only reason Democrats tried to block him, is because they were upset that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Brett Kavanuagh only caught Trump's attention, because he once stated that Presidents shouldn't undergo prosecution while they're in office. But there is no such thing as prosecution of a sitting President anyway--we have an impeachment process to rid ourselves of criminal and inept behavior of a President.
Analysis | Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

So the question is?
Since women have a very unfavorable opinon of Trump, (7 in 10) would it be wiser for Republicans to go ahead with an investigation & or drop Kavanaugh for a woman nominee?
Gallup Poll: 7 in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

Actually the Republicans were BARRED from considering Garland's nomination, as to do so would have been a violation of the beloved Biden Rule. Biden, of course, was the Senate's president's at the time.

As far as a woman nominee for the court after this embarrassing performance by the libs?

President Trump would really have to pick a woman with balls that would attack the liberals from Minute One of the confirmation process.

Someone like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

Ann Cloutler & Michelle Malkin aren't Federal District Court Judges--dumbass. You'll have to provide a credibile--verifiable link to your claims that Republicans were barred from confirming Merrick Garland--

otherwise as always it goes into the

Republicans campaigned on the SCOTUS nominee in 2016, after making certain that Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland didn't get a chance. Why? Because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked. Well as it turns out, Hillary Clinton may have picked Niel Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh as her nominee, because she voted to confirm both of them for Federal District court positions.

In fact, Hillary Clinton along with Barack Obama actually voted for both of them, as they came out of the G.W. Bush administration as Federal District Court judges in year 2006, when Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and could have easily rejected them. This while Senate Democrats were historically turning down a lot of G.W's nominee's. IOW--Both have already run the Democrat gaunlet and passed with flying colors.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators

Brett Kavanaugh - Wikipedia

Anthony Scalia NOT'S !!!

In fact here are the Democrats that confirmed both Brett Kavanuagh & Niel Gorsuch in 2006 for Federal District Court of Appeals positions.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone. The only reason Democrats tried to block him, is because they were upset that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Brett Kavanuagh only caught Trump's attention, because he once stated that Presidents shouldn't undergo prosecution while they're in office. But there is no such thing as prosecution of a sitting President anyway--we have an impeachment process to rid ourselves of criminal and inept behavior of a President.
Analysis | Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

So the question is?
Since women have a very unfavorable opinon of Trump, (7 in 10) would it be wiser for Republicans to go ahead with an investigation & or drop Kavanaugh for a woman nominee?
Gallup Poll: 7 in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

Paybacks for Garland.

Garland wasn't falsely accused of attempt rape, flashing or organizing Rape Train Parties.

No one slandered him, or tried to destroy his life.

Merrick Garland didn't even make it into committee dumbass. The door never even got cracked for him. Republicans blocked him, simply because they wanted to use the next SCOTUS nominee to campaign on in 2016. That's all it was about. They left that SCOTUS seat open for MONTHS--and they feel now, that they don't have the time to investigate Kavanaugh a little further?

 

[Polishprince]

Republicans campaigned on the SCOTUS nominee in 2016, after making certain that Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland didn't get a chance. Why? Because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked. Well as it turns out, Hillary Clinton may have picked Niel Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh as her nominee, because she voted to confirm both of them for Federal District court positions.

In fact, Hillary Clinton along with Barack Obama actually voted for both of them, as they came out of the G.W. Bush administration as Federal District Court judges in year 2006, when Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and could have easily rejected them. This while Senate Democrats were historically turning down a lot of G.W's nominee's. IOW--Both have already run the Democrat gaunlet and passed with flying colors.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators

Brett Kavanaugh - Wikipedia

Anthony Scalia NOT'S !!!

In fact here are the Democrats that confirmed both Brett Kavanuagh & Niel Gorsuch in 2006 for Federal District Court of Appeals positions.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone. The only reason Democrats tried to block him, is because they were upset that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Brett Kavanuagh only caught Trump's attention, because he once stated that Presidents shouldn't undergo prosecution while they're in office. But there is no such thing as prosecution of a sitting President anyway--we have an impeachment process to rid ourselves of criminal and inept behavior of a President.
Analysis | Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

So the question is?
Since women have a very unfavorable opinon of Trump, (7 in 10) would it be wiser for Republicans to go ahead with an investigation & or drop Kavanaugh for a woman nominee?
Gallup Poll: 7 in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

Actually the Republicans were BARRED from considering Garland's nomination, as to do so would have been a violation of the beloved Biden Rule. Biden, of course, was the Senate's president's at the time.

As far as a woman nominee for the court after this embarrassing performance by the libs?

President Trump would really have to pick a woman with balls that would attack the liberals from Minute One of the confirmation process.

Someone like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

Ann Cloutler & Michelle Malkin aren't Federal District Court Judges--dumbass. You'll have to provide a credibile--verifiable link to your claims that Republicans were barred from confirming Merrick Garland--

otherwise as always it goes into the

Republicans campaigned on the SCOTUS nominee in 2016, after making certain that Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland didn't get a chance. Why? Because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked. Well as it turns out, Hillary Clinton may have picked Niel Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh as her nominee, because she voted to confirm both of them for Federal District court positions.

In fact, Hillary Clinton along with Barack Obama actually voted for both of them, as they came out of the G.W. Bush administration as Federal District Court judges in year 2006, when Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and could have easily rejected them. This while Senate Democrats were historically turning down a lot of G.W's nominee's. IOW--Both have already run the Democrat gaunlet and passed with flying colors.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators

Brett Kavanaugh - Wikipedia

Anthony Scalia NOT'S !!!

In fact here are the Democrats that confirmed both Brett Kavanuagh & Niel Gorsuch in 2006 for Federal District Court of Appeals positions.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone. The only reason Democrats tried to block him, is because they were upset that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Brett Kavanuagh only caught Trump's attention, because he once stated that Presidents shouldn't undergo prosecution while they're in office. But there is no such thing as prosecution of a sitting President anyway--we have an impeachment process to rid ourselves of criminal and inept behavior of a President.
Analysis | Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

So the question is?
Since women have a very unfavorable opinon of Trump, (7 in 10) would it be wiser for Republicans to go ahead with an investigation & or drop Kavanaugh for a woman nominee?
Gallup Poll: 7 in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

Paybacks for Garland.

Garland wasn't falsely accused of attempt rape, flashing or organizing Rape Train Parties.

No one slandered him, or tried to destroy his life.

Merrick Garland didn't even make it into committee dumbass. The door never even got cracked for him. Republicans blocked him, simply because they wanted to use the next SCOTUS nominee to campaign on in 2016. That's all it was about. They left that SCOTUS seat open for MONTHS--and they feel now, that they don't have the time to investigate Kavanaugh a little further?

Had Mrs. Clinton won the election, Garland would have been confirmed by Thanksgiving 2016. No one would have accused him of anything , much less Teenage Rape Train parties in a toney suburb.

Right now, the next Supreme Court session starts next week. The idea right now is to get him on the court this week so he can report to work on Monday morning. That's a tight schedule. But the Republicans have the majority in the Senate, that gives them alone the obligation and responsibility to set the calendar.

 

[Deno]

We really don't know if what this woman, Ford is saying is true or not, do we? And let's face it, men typically don't assault women in public places.

Republicans are really in a corner on this one. Worst case scenario, they confirm Kavanaugh--and then find out that Ford was telling the truth. 2nd scenario--they confirm Kavanaugh without an investigation, showing they could care less about women and their claims of sexual assault or harrassement.

And let's face it Republicans already have a yuuuge problem with women voters in this country. Why add more fuel to the fire.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

You libtards are so confused....

Thinking women see you libtards for the SCUM you are...

We are going to kick your asses silly this November...….

I am not a liberal dumbass. I have been on this board since 2008 and have over 17K posts to prove that. I was a lifelong Republican until you made this Ass Clown the poster boy of the Republican party, and then changed my party status to Independent and followed the advice of a long time friend and former staffer of RONALD REAGAN.

No you're a paid poster who piles all this off topic crap in your posts, which I rarely read.

.

If oreo is getting paid for that Bull Shit he spews.....

Someone sure as hell ain't getting their monies worth...

Take you crayons and coloring books and go somewhere else. Talking in Platitudes on a political board will get you nowhere.

Platitudes is all you libtards got...….

 

[basquebromance]

Yearbooks for the next decade are going to be insufferably dry. “Enjoyed watercolor class.”

 

[basquebromance]

Sure people give up. Doesn’t mean you ever should.

 

[basquebromance]

Sasse can barely contain his anger at Feinstein (process!)

doesn't seem very concerned abt attempted rape

 

[Timmy]

Kav is born n bread DC , private school, double YALEE, blue blood .

Since when do Cons like that bio? Who wants that on the Supreme Court ?

 

[basquebromance]

"The constantly claim from Kavanaugh that “the 4 other people at the party said it didn’t happen” is a lie. 3 said they don’t remember it, unsurprising since they didn’t witness the incident. One of them said they believe Dr. Ford. Only 1 said it didn’t happen: Mark Judge."

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It’s the principal. The whole thing is stupid. Did you sir when you were a kid try to grope another kid at party? There are no corroborating witnesses...you’re guilty.

Fucking stupid.