They're addmitting it's true, they just don't care it's true and he lied

[candycorn]

you can come decades later and say it, but there are statutes of limitation that prevents anything legal, coming from it, even if true....and expect to be bashed and lied about and gone over like a fine tooth comb, if you do, and maybe lose your own job and career.

Thats true. But shouldn't the time span between the act and the public complaint bear some weight in the discussion? Don't you find it a bit strange that this comes up only when he is mentioned as a nominee to the US Supreme Court?

Kavanaugh has lied about his handling of stolen Democratic documents, in his past hearing for the Appellate court... which came to light in this hearing with document releases.... he's opined the President should be King... and other things that I totally disagree with him and oppose him for those reason... no one needed this woman to come forward.

Noted.

But immaterial to this thread.

What you have missed is that most women that have been abused or sexually assaulted when they were 15 years old or any age, DO NOT COME FORWARD, for decades... women and girls are taught or were self taught, to man up, and keep their mouths shut, if they want to make it, in this man's world....

The me too movement shows that it takes decades for people who have been abused or sexually harrassed, to stand up and fight for themselves...

The Me too movement also shows that a lot of women are happy to jump in the sack with powerful men as long as there is something in it for them. The latest tape to surface of that pig Weinstein and Melissa Thompson (I think that was her name) shows her flirting with him and letting his advances continue. Her pleading victim, to me, is laughable.



Sadly, I think is what has happened in many of these cases. All's great between the parties until these guys move on to the next pair of legs. Then the forgotten women play the victim card.

Is/was there abuse? Sure. I'm glad these men are suffering whatever pain and indignity they suffer. But really, if you're going to bring up "me too" where women were keeping their mouth shut to make it in a man's world that's great. I agree. But what influence did Kav exercise that would have kept this woman silent? Harvey Weinstein could make it to where you don't get jobs. Matt Lauer could reduce you to a nobody at NBC. Larry Nasser (sp?) could tell the coach that you're not up to practicing in his medical opinion. Kav? What was he going to do--especially as a high school student?

same with kids abused by pedophile priests...

I see what you're saying and the point you're trying to make. Powerful _________ takes advantage of weak ________. But those are kids you're talking about here vs. respected men of the cloth. Not the case in Hollywood or Kav.

 

[Care4all]

from the article


And the more we talk about what Kavanaugh did or didn’t do a third of a century ago, the happier his Republican supporters will be. From the beginning, they have tried to focus the confirmation battle on whether Kavanaugh is a good guy.

He sure seems like one. He dined with his law students, volunteers at soup kitchens, and coaches his daughter’s basketball team. He even drives the car pool!

But that has nothing to do with whether he’d be an effective Supreme Court justice, or whether he’d protect the rights of all Americans. A lovely human being can cause enormous harm on the court, just as a terrible person can be a great tribune for justice and progress.

......

Enough about Kavanaugh's character, and whether his teenage self bears any relation to his contemporary one. It diverts us from the only thing that counts: how he'd rule on the Supreme Court. I’d rather have a jerk on the court who protects our rights than a gentleman who undermines them. Wouldn't you?


Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

 

[Darkwind]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

Exactly.

This is typical of most on the right: ignore the lies and dishonesty, blindly support a Republican president and what he does, including whom he nominates to the Supreme Court.

You should run to the Senate with the proof you have of her accusations.

Hard proof. I know you're in imbecile, but you should at least understand what that is, right?

 

[Darkwind]

from the article


ndefensible. But so is tormenting a gay kid and chopping off his hair.

And the more we talk about what Kavanaugh did or didn’t do a third of a century ago, the happier his Republican supporters will be. From the beginning, they have tried to focus the confirmation battle on whether Kavanaugh is a good guy.

He sure seems like one. He dined with his law students, volunteers at soup kitchens, and coaches his daughter’s basketball team. He even drives the car pool!

But that has nothing to do with whether he’d be an effective Supreme Court justice, or whether he’d protect the rights of all Americans. A lovely human being can cause enormous harm on the court, just as a terrible person can be a great tribune for justice and progress.

......

Enough about Kavanaugh's character, and whether his teenage self bears any relation to his contemporary one. It diverts us from the only thing that counts: how he'd rule on the Supreme Court. I’d rather have a jerk on the court who protects our rights than a gentleman who undermines them. Wouldn't you?


Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Good thing Kavanaugh is a striction constructionist then. Because adhering to the Constitution is the ONLY way to protect our rights.

 

[Darkwind]

you can come decades later and say it, but there are statutes of limitation that prevents anything legal, coming from it, even if true....and expect to be bashed and lied about and gone over like a fine tooth comb, if you do, and maybe lose your own job and career.

Thats true. But shouldn't the time span between the act and the public complaint bear some weight in the discussion? Don't you find it a bit strange that this comes up only when he is mentioned as a nominee to the US Supreme Court?

Kavanaugh has lied about his handling of stolen Democratic documents, in his past hearing for the Appellate court... which came to light in this hearing with document releases.... he's opined the President should be King... and other things that I totally disagree with him and oppose him for those reason... no one needed this woman to come forward.

Noted.

But immaterial to this thread.

What you have missed is that most women that have been abused or sexually assaulted when they were 15 years old or any age, DO NOT COME FORWARD, for decades... women and girls are taught or were self taught, to man up, and keep their mouths shut, if they want to make it, in this man's world....

The me too movement shows that it takes decades for people who have been abused or sexually harrassed, to stand up and fight for themselves...

The Me too movement also shows that a lot of women are happy to jump in the sack with powerful men as long as there is something in it for them. The latest tape to surface of that pig Weinstein and Melissa Thompson (I think that was her name) shows her flirting with him and letting his advances continue. Her pleading victim, to me, is laughable.



Sadly, I think is what has happened in many of these cases. All's great between the parties until these guys move on to the next pair of legs. Then the forgotten women play the victim card.

Is/was there abuse? Sure. I'm glad these men are suffering whatever pain and indignity they suffer. But really, if you're going to bring up "me too" where women were keeping their mouth shut to make it in a man's world that's great. I agree. But what influence did Kav exercise that would have kept this woman silent? Harvey Weinstein could make it to where you don't get jobs. Matt Lauer could reduce you to a nobody at NBC. Larry Nasser (sp?) could tell the coach that you're not up to practicing in his medical opinion. Kav? What was he going to do--especially as a high school student?

same with kids abused by pedophile priests...

I see what you're saying and the point you're trying to make. Powerful _________ takes advantage of weak ________. But those are kids you're talking about here vs. respected men of the cloth. Not the case in Hollywood or Kav.

Even worse. It ONLY comes up when it is clear that the Democrats are unable to derail him because of his qualifications to hold lthe seat.

 

[gipper]

No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.

Fuck all of you worthless hypocrites.

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are fucking scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks, like congress flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules, like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

If a radical leftist like Ginsberg can get 94 senators to vote her in, why not anyone?

Ops...forgot the standard is different for R nominees.

Oh well...I don’t really give a shit. Trump will just nominate another justice who likely is more conservative than Kavanaugh.

 

[Hiryuu]

Show me some sort of report to an authority figure and I'll change my opinion in an instant.

I don't know about you, but I don't like having to ask for the obvious.

The Democrats have had the story for some time. The polygraph she took was some time ago. They have met with Brett Kavanaugh on several occasions since, where they could have addressed the issue. Instead they wait until the end and expose what they presume to be damning evidence, after a complete clown show by both sides during most of the hearings and vetting. The Democrats chose to make Dr. Ford a political operative, when they chose to use her story at a specific time, to accomplish a specific goal, not necessarily associated with the components of the story.

Who, when and how, are the things that make the story less credible to some. I don't like the fact I am compelled to doubt on the story, because it's not a stretch to think she may be lying for political purposes, and the way the Democrats handled the information she did offer, suggests they are using that information for purposes other than simply exposing the truth of the matter.

I cannot say I believe Dr. Ford or Brett Kavanaugh, but I can say the Democrats had the information they needed to present the story in a more timely manner that might have provided a bit more credibility to how the story was received.

 

[Claudette]

My question is where are the other three who were in on this near rape accusation??

Is this nutjob pursuing them as well or just Kav??

 

[candycorn]

Show me some sort of report to an authority figure and I'll change my opinion in an instant.

I don't know about you, but I don't like having to ask for the obvious.

The Democrats have had the story for some time. The polygraph she took was some time ago. They have met with Brett Kavanaugh on several occasions since, where they could have addressed the issue. Instead they wait until the end and expose what they presume to be damning evidence, after a complete clown show by both sides during most of the hearings and vetting. The Democrats chose to make Dr. Ford a political operative, when they chose to use her story at a specific time, to accomplish a specific goal, not necessarily associated with the components of the story.

Who, when and how, are the things that make the story less credible to some. I don't like the fact I am compelled to doubt on the story, because it's not a stretch to think she may be lying for political purposes, and the way the Democrats handled the information she did offer, suggests they are using that information for purposes other than simply exposing the truth of the matter.

I cannot say I believe Dr. Ford or Brett Kavanaugh, but I can say the Democrats had the information they needed to present the story in a more timely manner that might have provided a bit more credibility to how the story was received.

If there is a complaint or popo report from 1983 that changes things. This prolonged silence followed by accusation of felonious behavior doesn’t hold water in my view. If she reported it to the appropriate authority when it took place, that’s different.

 

[forkup]

No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.

Fuck all of you worthless hypocrites.

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are fucking scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks, like congress flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules, like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

If a radical leftist like Ginsberg can get 94 senators to vote her in, why not anyone?

Ops...forgot the standard is different for R nominees.

Oh well...I don’t really give a shit. Trump will just nominate another justice who likely is more conservative than Kavanaugh.

It seems to be a different standard. As I said, last time a Democrat nominated a Scotus nominee, congress simply said."we won't meet with this guy." Ginsburg was nominated in a time when congress looked at qualifications before party when electing a judge to the supreme court. Now we live in a time when politics has become a zero sum game. I rather have it wasn't so. I'd rather have Kavanaugh being judged on his merit. Even if this would swing the courts to the right. Even though I consider that swing gotten by the Republicans cheating on the previous pick. The thing is though that that would be naive. To many people now believe that politics as a zero sum game now is preferable to the art of compromise and Republican especially, realize that considering current demographics, playing the game fair would result in them losing all power. One does not keep the majority fairly if your party only represents 27 percent of the populace.1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups

 

[gipper]

No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.

Fuck all of you worthless hypocrites.

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are fucking scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks, like congress flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules, like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

If a radical leftist like Ginsberg can get 94 senators to vote her in, why not anyone?

Ops...forgot the standard is different for R nominees.

Oh well...I don’t really give a shit. Trump will just nominate another justice who likely is more conservative than Kavanaugh.

It seems to be a different standard. As I said, last time a Democrat nominated a Scotus nominee, congress simply said."we won't meet with this guy." Ginsburg was nominated in a time when congress looked at qualifications before party when electing a judge to the supreme court. Now we live in a time when politics has become a zero sum game. I rather have it wasn't so. I'd rather have Kavanaugh being judged on his merit. Even if this would swing the courts to the right. Even though I consider that swing gotten by the Republicans cheating on the previous pick. The thing is though that that would be naive. To many people now believe that politics as a zero sum game now is preferable to the art of compromise and Republican especially, realize that considering current demographics, playing the game fair would result in them losing all power. One does not keep the majority fairly if your party only represents 27 percent of the populace.1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

 

[forkup]

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are fucking scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks, like congress flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules, like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

If a radical leftist like Ginsberg can get 94 senators to vote her in, why not anyone?

Ops...forgot the standard is different for R nominees.

Oh well...I don’t really give a shit. Trump will just nominate another justice who likely is more conservative than Kavanaugh.

It seems to be a different standard. As I said, last time a Democrat nominated a Scotus nominee, congress simply said."we won't meet with this guy." Ginsburg was nominated in a time when congress looked at qualifications before party when electing a judge to the supreme court. Now we live in a time when politics has become a zero sum game. I rather have it wasn't so. I'd rather have Kavanaugh being judged on his merit. Even if this would swing the courts to the right. Even though I consider that swing gotten by the Republicans cheating on the previous pick. The thing is though that that would be naive. To many people now believe that politics as a zero sum game now is preferable to the art of compromise and Republican especially, realize that considering current demographics, playing the game fair would result in them losing all power. One does not keep the majority fairly if your party only represents 27 percent of the populace.1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

 

[gipper]

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks, like congress flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules, like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

If a radical leftist like Ginsberg can get 94 senators to vote her in, why not anyone?

Ops...forgot the standard is different for R nominees.

Oh well...I don’t really give a shit. Trump will just nominate another justice who likely is more conservative than Kavanaugh.

It seems to be a different standard. As I said, last time a Democrat nominated a Scotus nominee, congress simply said."we won't meet with this guy." Ginsburg was nominated in a time when congress looked at qualifications before party when electing a judge to the supreme court. Now we live in a time when politics has become a zero sum game. I rather have it wasn't so. I'd rather have Kavanaugh being judged on his merit. Even if this would swing the courts to the right. Even though I consider that swing gotten by the Republicans cheating on the previous pick. The thing is though that that would be naive. To many people now believe that politics as a zero sum game now is preferable to the art of compromise and Republican especially, realize that considering current demographics, playing the game fair would result in them losing all power. One does not keep the majority fairly if your party only represents 27 percent of the populace.1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS an SC pick? Come on now.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Seen this circus before. It's laughable.

 

[forkup]

Rotten dirty tricks, like congress flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules, like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

If a radical leftist like Ginsberg can get 94 senators to vote her in, why not anyone?

Ops...forgot the standard is different for R nominees.

Oh well...I don’t really give a shit. Trump will just nominate another justice who likely is more conservative than Kavanaugh.

It seems to be a different standard. As I said, last time a Democrat nominated a Scotus nominee, congress simply said."we won't meet with this guy." Ginsburg was nominated in a time when congress looked at qualifications before party when electing a judge to the supreme court. Now we live in a time when politics has become a zero sum game. I rather have it wasn't so. I'd rather have Kavanaugh being judged on his merit. Even if this would swing the courts to the right. Even though I consider that swing gotten by the Republicans cheating on the previous pick. The thing is though that that would be naive. To many people now believe that politics as a zero sum game now is preferable to the art of compromise and Republican especially, realize that considering current demographics, playing the game fair would result in them losing all power. One does not keep the majority fairly if your party only represents 27 percent of the populace.1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

 

[Avatar4321]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

He did it? Based on what?

Seriously, the accuser can’t remember details, admits she was under the influence of alcohol, can’t even be consistent with the number of people involved. All others who were allegedly there say it didn’t happen.

So please what’s your evidence? Or do you even care if it’s true as long as you can continue killing unborn children?

 

[gipper]

If a radical leftist like Ginsberg can get 94 senators to vote her in, why not anyone?

Ops...forgot the standard is different for R nominees.

Oh well...I don’t really give a shit. Trump will just nominate another justice who likely is more conservative than Kavanaugh.

It seems to be a different standard. As I said, last time a Democrat nominated a Scotus nominee, congress simply said."we won't meet with this guy." Ginsburg was nominated in a time when congress looked at qualifications before party when electing a judge to the supreme court. Now we live in a time when politics has become a zero sum game. I rather have it wasn't so. I'd rather have Kavanaugh being judged on his merit. Even if this would swing the courts to the right. Even though I consider that swing gotten by the Republicans cheating on the previous pick. The thing is though that that would be naive. To many people now believe that politics as a zero sum game now is preferable to the art of compromise and Republican especially, realize that considering current demographics, playing the game fair would result in them losing all power. One does not keep the majority fairly if your party only represents 27 percent of the populace.1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

 

[gipper]

It seems to be a different standard. As I said, last time a Democrat nominated a Scotus nominee, congress simply said."we won't meet with this guy." Ginsburg was nominated in a time when congress looked at qualifications before party when electing a judge to the supreme court. Now we live in a time when politics has become a zero sum game. I rather have it wasn't so. I'd rather have Kavanaugh being judged on his merit. Even if this would swing the courts to the right. Even though I consider that swing gotten by the Republicans cheating on the previous pick. The thing is though that that would be naive. To many people now believe that politics as a zero sum game now is preferable to the art of compromise and Republican especially, realize that considering current demographics, playing the game fair would result in them losing all power. One does not keep the majority fairly if your party only represents 27 percent of the populace.1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

 

[forkup]

It seems to be a different standard. As I said, last time a Democrat nominated a Scotus nominee, congress simply said."we won't meet with this guy." Ginsburg was nominated in a time when congress looked at qualifications before party when electing a judge to the supreme court. Now we live in a time when politics has become a zero sum game. I rather have it wasn't so. I'd rather have Kavanaugh being judged on his merit. Even if this would swing the courts to the right. Even though I consider that swing gotten by the Republicans cheating on the previous pick. The thing is though that that would be naive. To many people now believe that politics as a zero sum game now is preferable to the art of compromise and Republican especially, realize that considering current demographics, playing the game fair would result in them losing all power. One does not keep the majority fairly if your party only represents 27 percent of the populace.1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
I have precedent of Scotus nominees confirmed doing election years, no less then 14 times, what do you base your assertion on? As to definitions, I used Webster's dictionary what did you use for your definition?

 

[forkup]

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.