What say you

[P@triot]

The ironic thing about kavfefe is he thinks govt ASSUMPTION is enough to restrict our rights.
What a fucking JOKE he is

I tend to agree with you, TNH. I don't like this pick at all. We desperately needed with Ted Cruz or Mike Lee on the court. Both would actually uphold the U.S. Constitution as it is written. Kavanaugh won't.

 

[jc456]

Investigations in general are usually lacking.

Rob Porter had a wife who filed and EPO against him. He was staff secretary at the White House. While the FBI may not have done a check on it, surely the Secret Service should have and not allowed this serial wife abuser anywhere near the President much less the sensitive information he may have held. PS: Kav had the same job under Bush.


For a thorough investigation you need a set up like Captain Mueller has; a staff of competent individuals who know what questions to ask and the authority to drill as deep as you need to drill. And you need time.

Kav's investigation is for a job; he's had it done six times already. Whatever the investigation entails; nothing has been found before that is disqualifying.

are you saying the fbi sucks?

No. I’m saying for a thorough investigation, you need a set up like we have for the special counsel. Someone who has the time, staff, and authority.

where's the precedence for such an investigation for a nominee to the supreme court? that's how we run our government by precedence.

How many nominees for the SC have been accused of sexual abuse?

Off the top of my head two, Clarence Thomas and now Brett Kavanaugh. Both nominees from republican presidents. Correct me if there are any others. I know there are at least 11 nominations that didn't go through for many different reasons. But do tell, how many? And I want to know which nominees besides Garland, didn't get nominated since the 60s from a democratic president?

Remember the Biden rule of '92 that stopped George Bush nominee in 1992.

 

[candycorn]

No. I’m saying for a thorough investigation, you need a set up like we have for the special counsel. Someone who has the time, staff, and authority.

where's the precedence for such an investigation for a nominee to the supreme court? that's how we run our government by precedence.

Where is the precedence for holding a spot open for nearly a year by the Committee?

are your referring to Garland? If you are, here it is from the '92. The Biden Rule:

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

"McConnell is using Biden’s own words from 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president and Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to explain why he intends to block President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick in an election year.

"The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision" on who to name to the court, McConnell said in a March 16 speech on the floor of the Senate.

McConnell went on to quote some words from then-Judiciary Chairman Biden to show why the Senate’s disagreement with Obama is "about a principle, not a person.""

Dude, you all never know your facts. amazing shit.

And who was the name of the previous nominees that didn’t get a hearing?

So there is no precedent. Dude, you don’t know your facts. Amazing shit.

 

[candycorn]

Investigations in general are usually lacking.

Rob Porter had a wife who filed and EPO against him. He was staff secretary at the White House. While the FBI may not have done a check on it, surely the Secret Service should have and not allowed this serial wife abuser anywhere near the President much less the sensitive information he may have held. PS: Kav had the same job under Bush.


For a thorough investigation you need a set up like Captain Mueller has; a staff of competent individuals who know what questions to ask and the authority to drill as deep as you need to drill. And you need time.

Kav's investigation is for a job; he's had it done six times already. Whatever the investigation entails; nothing has been found before that is disqualifying.

are you saying the fbi sucks?

No. I’m saying for a thorough investigation, you need a set up like we have for the special counsel. Someone who has the time, staff, and authority.

where's the precedence for such an investigation for a nominee to the supreme court? that's how we run our government by precedence.

How many nominees for the SC have been accused of sexual abuse?

Off the top of my head two, Clarence Thomas and now Brett Kavanaugh. Both nominees from republican presidents. Correct me if there are any others. I know there are at least 11 nominations that didn't go through for many different reasons. But do tell, how many? And I want to know which nominees besides Garland, didn't get nominated since the 60s from a democratic president?

Remember the Biden rule of '92 that stopped George Bush nominee in 1992.

Again, how many didn’t get hearings?

 

[jc456]

where's the precedence for such an investigation for a nominee to the supreme court? that's how we run our government by precedence.

Where is the precedence for holding a spot open for nearly a year by the Committee?

are your referring to Garland? If you are, here it is from the '92. The Biden Rule:

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

"McConnell is using Biden’s own words from 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president and Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to explain why he intends to block President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick in an election year.

"The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision" on who to name to the court, McConnell said in a March 16 speech on the floor of the Senate.

McConnell went on to quote some words from then-Judiciary Chairman Biden to show why the Senate’s disagreement with Obama is "about a principle, not a person.""

Dude, you all never know your facts. amazing shit.

And who was the name of the previous nominees that didn’t get a hearing?

So there is no precedent. Dude, you don’t know your facts. Amazing shit.

I gave it to you already. I don't care you don't like it, but the Biden Rule from '92 is the precedence. oh well what a goof ball you are.

 

[jc456]

are you saying the fbi sucks?

No. I’m saying for a thorough investigation, you need a set up like we have for the special counsel. Someone who has the time, staff, and authority.

where's the precedence for such an investigation for a nominee to the supreme court? that's how we run our government by precedence.

How many nominees for the SC have been accused of sexual abuse?

Off the top of my head two, Clarence Thomas and now Brett Kavanaugh. Both nominees from republican presidents. Correct me if there are any others. I know there are at least 11 nominations that didn't go through for many different reasons. But do tell, how many? And I want to know which nominees besides Garland, didn't get nominated since the 60s from a democratic president?

Remember the Biden rule of '92 that stopped George Bush nominee in 1992.

Again, how many didn’t get hearings?

here, go look it up..

Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

 

[kwc57]

I didnt believe the accusations. At least the one by ford. I have no doubt he showed his penis to women. Thats pretty much normal with kids. Just like chicks showing their tits.
I do not want him confirmed. That is only because of his judicial record.
Fuck Brett Kavfefe

Interesting, I personally don't know anything about his judicial record or deportment, I do know he will become the 5th vote on the Supreme Court, and his thinly veiled hate for The Clinton's and Democrats in general makes him unfit to don the robe on the SC, the Court of Appeals and a trial court anywhere in the U.S.

McConnell and Grassley have done a disservice to democracy. Their theater of the absurd fooled no one!

It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought to be a fool than open it and confirm it. You openly admit you don't know anything about his work, but you're against him anyway because that's what your media and political handlers have told you to do. I'd venture to say he didn't hate anyone at t he outset of this witch hunt and railroad job. McConnell and Grassley did just fine playing along with the feces throwing howler monkeys across the aisle and caving to each request they made thru the process. They don't have a leg to stand on in complaining about the process as they got every delay they sought, but they will. Right on queue after the FBI finishing their 7th investigation, the Dems are screaming cover up. If anyone has perverted our democracy, it is the shameless Democrats. They are too stupid to realize that all of these precedents they create will come back to bite them in the ass. Harry Reid went nuclear and killed the filibuster. Control of Congress changes hands and his brilliant idea allowed McConnell to hold up Garland's confirmation. Now with this trotting out a female accuser in the 11th hour and Democrats insisting she must be believed, to forego innocent until proven guilty and that Kavanaugh is automatically disqualified, they've handed the Republicans another tool to stop any future Democrat President's candidate from taking the bench. Smooth move exlax. Maybe the Dems should just be statesmen and honor the system instead of try and thwart democracy in their endless quest for power. Dumb shits.

 

[TNHarley]

The ironic thing about kavfefe is he thinks govt ASSUMPTION is enough to restrict our rights.
What a fucking JOKE he is

.

Look at his record man

He's a constitutionialist, that's his record. I could see where that might be a problem for you

The patriot act is not constitutional
Where do you retards come up with this bullshit?
He supoorted the aca mandate as well. That wasnt constitutional either.
he aint no goddamn constitutionalist. he is a swamp critter and trump got you hacks wanting to suck his dick

No one is going to get everything they want from any one judge.
You look at the preponderance of his rulings, and he's what I already described to you.
Now with the insults towards me....at least the sheep don't run scared from me on sight as they do to with you, fool.

You started the insults.
I know no one is oerfect, i just dont want a big govt hack sitting on the bench. Thats all

 

[Defiant1]

The investigation authorized by The President just completed is being released at the moment. What say you.

who really cares? if you still expect anyone believe it was about a woman who had no desire to testify and not delaying the confirmation then you are just trying to see who you think you can still keep playing.

His partisanship ALONE are grounds to disqualify him

I didn't see any partisanship.
Are you having bad dreams?

 

[TNHarley]

The ironic thing about kavfefe is he thinks govt ASSUMPTION is enough to restrict our rights.
What a fucking JOKE he is

I tend to agree with you, TNH. I don't like this pick at all. We desperately needed with Ted Cruz or Mike Lee on the court. Both would actually uphold the U.S. Constitution as it is written. Kavanaugh won't.

Thank you for not being a dumbass! Lol

 

[Meister]

.

Look at his record man

He's a constitutionialist, that's his record. I could see where that might be a problem for you

The patriot act is not constitutional
Where do you retards come up with this bullshit?
He supoorted the aca mandate as well. That wasnt constitutional either.
he aint no goddamn constitutionalist. he is a swamp critter and trump got you hacks wanting to suck his dick

No one is going to get everything they want from any one judge.
You look at the preponderance of his rulings, and he's what I already described to you.
Now with the insults towards me....at least the sheep don't run scared from me on sight as they do to with you, fool.

You started the insults.
I know no one is oerfect, i just dont want a big govt hack sitting on the bench. Thats all

Next time I'm in Johnson City, I'll buy you a beer.

 

[OKTexas]

Investigations in general are usually lacking.

Rob Porter had a wife who filed and EPO against him. He was staff secretary at the White House. While the FBI may not have done a check on it, surely the Secret Service should have and not allowed this serial wife abuser anywhere near the President much less the sensitive information he may have held. PS: Kav had the same job under Bush.


For a thorough investigation you need a set up like Captain Mueller has; a staff of competent individuals who know what questions to ask and the authority to drill as deep as you need to drill. And you need time.

Kav's investigation is for a job; he's had it done six times already. Whatever the investigation entails; nothing has been found before that is disqualifying.

are you saying the fbi sucks?

No. I’m saying for a thorough investigation, you need a set up like we have for the special counsel. Someone who has the time, staff, and authority.

where's the precedence for such an investigation for a nominee to the supreme court? that's how we run our government by precedence.

How many nominees for the SC have been accused of sexual abuse?

Off the top of my head two, Clarence Thomas and now Brett Kavanaugh. Both nominees from republican presidents. Correct me if there are any others. I know there are at least 11 nominations that didn't go through for many different reasons. But do tell, how many? And I want to know which nominees besides Garland, didn't get nominated since the 60s from a democratic president?

Remember the Biden rule of '92 that stopped George Bush nominee in 1992.

Actually the Biden rule was prophylactic, there was no Bush nominee at the time he invoked it and none came up.

.

 

[jc456]

are you saying the fbi sucks?

No. I’m saying for a thorough investigation, you need a set up like we have for the special counsel. Someone who has the time, staff, and authority.

where's the precedence for such an investigation for a nominee to the supreme court? that's how we run our government by precedence.

How many nominees for the SC have been accused of sexual abuse?

Off the top of my head two, Clarence Thomas and now Brett Kavanaugh. Both nominees from republican presidents. Correct me if there are any others. I know there are at least 11 nominations that didn't go through for many different reasons. But do tell, how many? And I want to know which nominees besides Garland, didn't get nominated since the 60s from a democratic president?

Remember the Biden rule of '92 that stopped George Bush nominee in 1992.

Actually the Biden rule was prophylactic, there was no Bush nominee at the time he invoked it and none came up.

.

and?

 

[OKTexas]

are you saying the fbi sucks?

No. I’m saying for a thorough investigation, you need a set up like we have for the special counsel. Someone who has the time, staff, and authority.

where's the precedence for such an investigation for a nominee to the supreme court? that's how we run our government by precedence.

How many nominees for the SC have been accused of sexual abuse?

Off the top of my head two, Clarence Thomas and now Brett Kavanaugh. Both nominees from republican presidents. Correct me if there are any others. I know there are at least 11 nominations that didn't go through for many different reasons. But do tell, how many? And I want to know which nominees besides Garland, didn't get nominated since the 60s from a democratic president?

Remember the Biden rule of '92 that stopped George Bush nominee in 1992.

Again, how many didn’t get hearings?

How is that relevant to this thread?

.

 

[edward37]

The investigation authorized by The President just completed is being released at the moment. What say you.

who really cares? if you still expect anyone believe it was about a woman who had no desire to testify and not delaying the confirmation then you are just trying to see who you think you can still keep playing.

His partisanship ALONE are grounds to disqualify him

I didn't see any partisanship.
Are you having bad dreams?

Blaming the left ,blaming Hillary??

 

[candycorn]

Where is the precedence for holding a spot open for nearly a year by the Committee?

are your referring to Garland? If you are, here it is from the '92. The Biden Rule:

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

"McConnell is using Biden’s own words from 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president and Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to explain why he intends to block President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick in an election year.

"The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision" on who to name to the court, McConnell said in a March 16 speech on the floor of the Senate.

McConnell went on to quote some words from then-Judiciary Chairman Biden to show why the Senate’s disagreement with Obama is "about a principle, not a person.""

Dude, you all never know your facts. amazing shit.

And who was the name of the previous nominees that didn’t get a hearing?

So there is no precedent. Dude, you don’t know your facts. Amazing shit.

I gave it to you already. I don't care you don't like it, but the Biden Rule from '92 is the precedence. oh well what a goof ball you are.

No…you are claiming there is some rule that was never in effect; it was a speech given by Senator Biden. There was no rule enacted and you cannot cite any rule on the books to the contrary.

Hence, you have no precedence.

 

[candycorn]

No. I’m saying for a thorough investigation, you need a set up like we have for the special counsel. Someone who has the time, staff, and authority.

where's the precedence for such an investigation for a nominee to the supreme court? that's how we run our government by precedence.

How many nominees for the SC have been accused of sexual abuse?

Off the top of my head two, Clarence Thomas and now Brett Kavanaugh. Both nominees from republican presidents. Correct me if there are any others. I know there are at least 11 nominations that didn't go through for many different reasons. But do tell, how many? And I want to know which nominees besides Garland, didn't get nominated since the 60s from a democratic president?

Remember the Biden rule of '92 that stopped George Bush nominee in 1992.

Again, how many didn’t get hearings?

here, go look it up..

Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

Again, which ones didn’t get hearings?

You really don’t know much.

 

[OKTexas]

No. I’m saying for a thorough investigation, you need a set up like we have for the special counsel. Someone who has the time, staff, and authority.

where's the precedence for such an investigation for a nominee to the supreme court? that's how we run our government by precedence.

How many nominees for the SC have been accused of sexual abuse?

Off the top of my head two, Clarence Thomas and now Brett Kavanaugh. Both nominees from republican presidents. Correct me if there are any others. I know there are at least 11 nominations that didn't go through for many different reasons. But do tell, how many? And I want to know which nominees besides Garland, didn't get nominated since the 60s from a democratic president?

Remember the Biden rule of '92 that stopped George Bush nominee in 1992.

Actually the Biden rule was prophylactic, there was no Bush nominee at the time he invoked it and none came up.

.

and?

You claimed it stopped a Bush nominee in 1992, it didn't. No need to be lose with the facts like the commies.

.

 

[jc456]

are your referring to Garland? If you are, here it is from the '92. The Biden Rule:

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

"McConnell is using Biden’s own words from 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president and Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to explain why he intends to block President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick in an election year.

"The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision" on who to name to the court, McConnell said in a March 16 speech on the floor of the Senate.

McConnell went on to quote some words from then-Judiciary Chairman Biden to show why the Senate’s disagreement with Obama is "about a principle, not a person.""

Dude, you all never know your facts. amazing shit.

And who was the name of the previous nominees that didn’t get a hearing?

So there is no precedent. Dude, you don’t know your facts. Amazing shit.

I gave it to you already. I don't care you don't like it, but the Biden Rule from '92 is the precedence. oh well what a goof ball you are.

No…you are claiming there is some rule that was never in effect; it was a speech given by Senator Biden. There was no rule enacted and you cannot cite any rule on the books to the contrary.

Hence, you have no precedence.

I gave you the precedence. I don't care if you accept it or not. It's what was used. prove me wrong?

 

[Meathead]

The investigation authorized by The President just completed is being released at the moment. What say you.

Well, if CNN says so:
FBI interviews in Kavanaugh investigation go beyond initial White House mandate
FBI expands inquiry into Ford allegations - CNNPolitics