Hat tip to Trump for his unassailable SCOTUS pick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals loved it when Obama said elections have consequences.

Not so much now ...........

We meant legitimate elections free of foreign interference. Sorry that’s so hard for you.

It is actually damn hard to understand the hallucination that the Russians hacked the Electoral College. Maybe if you take your meds you can explain? I don't get it, but I don't have mental problems.

It is just liberal frustration. They are losing out on every front and can't come to terms with it.

Endless media hits on Trump and he just blazes on ..... can you blame liberals for their rants?

Abortion rights will be the hill that Republicans die on. You will have lost women for generations.

Like demographics were going to doom the Republicans in 2016?

The bots seem to have come back.

Every time they do, you lose debates. Maybe you need to leave and pursue another career.

No, people stop responding because you can’t argue with stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh will sail through. Sure we'll here lots of this and that, but it's a done deal. Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, etc will all confirm. Plus, he's actually a great pick. I dare anyone to come up with a plausible argument on why he should not be confirmed.

merrick Garland. Unassailable.

Merrick Garland. Private Citizen.

Merrick Garland is actually the Chief Judge in the same circuit where Kavanaugh serves but I guess it would be way too much to expect you to know something.

And there Garland shall remain.

If Trump had nominated Garland, Democrats would have opposed him claiming that he had made some sort of private deal with Trump. It just shows how utterly ridiculous and hysterical liberals have become.

No. If Kennedy had given Trump a list of 5 names from which he had to pick a nominee to succeed him as a quid pro quo, and that list included Garland, I would still be suspect. Trump repeatedly promised to use the list of candidates vetted by Heritage. Retiring justices don’t negotiate with the president.

[Anonymous]

[guardian]l

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh will sail through. Sure we'll here lots of this and that, but it's a done deal. Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, etc will all confirm. Plus, he's actually a great pick. I dare anyone to come up with a plausible argument on why he should not be confirmed.

merrick Garland. Unassailable.

Merrick Garland. Private Citizen.

Merrick Garland is actually the Chief Judge in the same circuit where Kavanaugh serves but I guess it would be way too much to expect you to know something.

And there Garland shall remain.

If Trump had nominated Garland, Democrats would have opposed him claiming that he had made some sort of private deal with Trump. It just shows how utterly ridiculous and hysterical liberals have become.

No. If Kennedy had given Trump a list of 5 names from which he had to pick a nominee to succeed him as a quid pro quo, and that list included Garland, I would still be suspect. Trump repeatedly promised to use the list of candidates vetted by Heritage. Retiring justices don’t negotiate with the president.

Trump corrupts everything he touches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there already threads on this?

I think this thread is the only positive one.

OP here - agree there's profound negativity and, frankly hysteria, in the other posts. There's nothing negative to say about this guy if you're being rationale and not some deranged partisan.

Agree. I think both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are excellent picks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there already threads on this?

I think this thread is the only positive one.

OP here - agree there's profound negativity and, frankly hysteria, in the other posts. There's nothing negative to say about this guy if you're being rationale and not some deranged partisan.

"Hysteria" is the last refuge of the modern conservative scoundrel.



"Oh, people are upset that their rights will be taken away! That American oligarchs are achieving the plan they put in place in the 70s! That black and brown and poor people will suffer to benefit rich white people! That kids will be unnecessarily shot to feed identity politics that gets votes for Republicans!
Hysteria!"

Nothing like some good hyperbole, amirite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ooops......

Seems as if the “women’s march” folks pre-wrote their response slamming the SCOTUS pick, but forgot to go back and enter the name of the nominee,
Pretty much exposes them for who they are........



Full response is printed in this article: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/9/womens-march-mocked-press-release-opposing-supreme/

Yep. And college kids were interviewed on campus two days ago, asking how they liked the SCOTUS nominee (acting as though the selection was already made). They all complained he was a racist, and horrible, and would take away their rights, etc., etc.

OMG, so pathetic. And these are the people who consider themselves "educated and well-informed"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Susan Collins likes Kavanaugh apparently ....... game over?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-begins-lobbying-campaign-gop-senators-n890266

I've said before and will repeat--she's one of my favorites--she has common sense and uses it!

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals loved it when Obama said elections have consequences.

Not so much now ...........

We meant legitimate elections free of foreign interference. Sorry that’s so hard for you.

It is actually damn hard to understand the hallucination that the Russians hacked the Electoral College. Maybe if you take your meds you can explain? I don't get it, but I don't have mental problems.

It is just liberal frustration. They are losing out on every front and can't come to terms with it.

Endless media hits on Trump and he just blazes on ..... can you blame liberals for their rants?

Abortion rights will be the hill that Republicans die on. You will have lost women for generations.

speak for yourself cupcake.

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[guardian]l

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh will sail through. Sure we'll here lots of this and that, but it's a done deal. Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, etc will all confirm. Plus, he's actually a great pick. I dare anyone to come up with a plausible argument on why he should not be confirmed.

merrick Garland. Unassailable.

Merrick Garland. Private Citizen.

Merrick Garland is actually the Chief Judge in the same circuit where Kavanaugh serves but I guess it would be way too much to expect you to know something.

And there Garland shall remain.

If Trump had nominated Garland, Democrats would have opposed him claiming that he had made some sort of private deal with Trump. It just shows how utterly ridiculous and hysterical liberals have become.

No. If Kennedy had given Trump a list of 5 names from which he had to pick a nominee to succeed him as a quid pro quo, and that list included Garland, I would still be suspect. Trump repeatedly promised to use the list of candidates vetted by Heritage. Retiring justices don’t negotiate with the president.

Trump corrupts everything he touches.

ETTD

[Anonymous]

Bots have beem busy sock puppeting in the last hour. What time is it in Russia?

[Anonymous]

Apparently, some Yale Law School alum do not agree with this "unassailable" choice:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b45753ee4b0c523e263ec91

[Anonymous]

One Dem vote that I think will go to Kavanaugh is Doug Jones of Alabama. He won because he had an egregious opponent. Had another Republican besides Roy Moore won the primary, Jones would have lost.

If he wants to be a one term Senator, then he will vote against Kavanaugh. He voted for Pompeo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, some Yale Law School alum do not agree with this "unassailable" choice:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b45753ee4b0c523e263ec91

Wow. What a shocker that some of Yale’s liberal folks don’t support him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Abortion is a red herring. There will always be legal abortion in the U.S. Roe is simply bad law, that doesn't mean the ability to access abortion should be constitutionally prohibited.

Single issue voters who are so easily excited (on both sides!) are such simpletons and so easy to manipulate. That's the real function of such arguments. The politically astute don't want this solved, it's such an easy way to poke the bear.

This exactly. Roe v. Wade is a distraction from the true reason Kavanaugh was selected. The conservative agenda of protecting corporate interests over individual rights is at the heart of this nomination.

And, of course, this from Seth Abramson's tweet, which is worth a read on the Kennedy/Trump collusion:

30/ What explains this *bizarre* behavior? These risky lies? Violating a core campaign promise? Exposing Kennedy to accusations of unethical conduct? It's simple: Brett Kavanaugh had written in 2009 that a president should be exempt from *civil suits and criminal investigations*.

[Anonymous]

Enjoy these questions prepared by Kavanaugh for the Starr investigation. Weren't asked; apparently went to far even for Starr:

https://themanpost.com/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-sex-scandal-trumps-scotus-pick-prepped-lewd-questions-on-lewinsky/

‘If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?’



‘If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions you had her give [you] oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom of the Oval Office, would she be lying?’

‘If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary’s office would she be lying?’