Hat tip to Trump for his unassailable SCOTUS pick

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Well, at least one thing you can say about liberals is that are prepared..... no matter the outcome. #ProtestSigns #Premade

[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.

Hilarious. And completely predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anticlimactic

[Anonymous]

He was responsible for the illegal leaks from the Starr investigation.

He holds extreme views on Roe v. Wade.

He has held the position that the President is above the law and ergo shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes committed.

How are these not extreme or disqualifying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He was responsible for the illegal leaks from the Starr investigation.

He holds extreme views on Roe v. Wade.

He has held the position that the President is above the law and ergo shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes committed.

How are these not extreme or disqualifying?

Oops I thought this administration didn’t like leakers? Or does that only hold if the leaks are negative toward your party?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He was responsible for the illegal leaks from the Starr investigation.

He holds extreme views on Roe v. Wade.

He has held the position that the President is above the law and ergo shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes committed.

How are these not extreme or disqualifying?

OMG. Get of MSNBC.

MSNBC political analyst Jonathan Alter accused President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh of leaking to the press during Ken Starr’s 1990s investigation into former President Clinton on Monday.......

Alter then said that Americans don’t know what Kavanaugh did while he served in former President George W. Bush’s administration or what he did when he was on Stars staff.

“I covered some of that at the time 20 years ago, and what I heard at the time, don’t have proof of this, is that Brett Kavanaugh was leaking,” Alter said. “Unlike Bob Mueller, Ken Starr’s staff routinely leaked details of that investigation.”

https://ntknetwork.com/msnbc-analyst-accuses-kavanaugh-of-leaking-to-the-press/

[Anonymous]

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/

Oh please. We all knew who was on the list. All the candidates passed the conservatives’ litmus test, all with extreme judicial views. This response goes equally well with any of them. Pretty standard stuff to prepare such statements in advance. And if you deny that Republicans don’t do the exact same sort of preparations when they’re dealing with a Democratic president’s nominee we all know you’re lying. Or just extremely ignorant of the way lobbying and politics work.

[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/

Oh please. We all knew who was on the list. All the candidates passed the conservatives’ litmus test, all with extreme judicial views. This response goes equally well with any of them. Pretty standard stuff to prepare such statements in advance. And if you deny that Republicans don’t do the exact same sort of preparations when they’re dealing with a Democratic president’s nominee we all know you’re lying. Or just extremely ignorant of the way lobbying and politics work.

Remind us of all the prepared statements for Kagan or Sottomoyor. Or, the protests.

It’s actually humorous that the women’s group was so anxious to get out a statement that they didn’t bother editing it. And, it shows that they would have taken issue with ANYONE he had nominated.

[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/

Oh please. We all knew who was on the list. All the candidates passed the conservatives’ litmus test, all with extreme judicial views. This response goes equally well with any of them. Pretty standard stuff to prepare such statements in advance. And if you deny that Republicans don’t do the exact same sort of preparations when they’re dealing with a Democratic president’s nominee we all know you’re lying. Or just extremely ignorant of the way lobbying and politics work.

Thank you for this admission. Too few DCUM posters are willing to admit the extreme machinations of their own party to achieve desired goals.

[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.

That’s because they’re so stupid and removed from reality that they had no idea that the announcement had not been made

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He was responsible for the illegal leaks from the Starr investigation.

He holds extreme views on Roe v. Wade.

He has held the position that the President is above the law and ergo shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes committed.

How are these not extreme or disqualifying?

Mueller also holds this view.

[Anonymous]

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.

Well he didn’t sail through last time, but maybe it will be different this time. Here’s a plausible argument: unlike seven of the other justices on the court who needed 60 advice and consent votes, Kavanaugh will only need 51, meaning the pick will not be a consensus. He won’t get 60 votes. The Senate does not see him as a solid pick like the other seven. Better picks are available.

Here’s another plausible argument not to confirm. Mitch McConnell has now established a rule that justices should not be confirmed in an election year. 33 Senators could lose their jobs in November. What’s the rush? Why should these senators get a say when they could be out of a job in just 4 months? Let the people decide; it’s what Mitch McConnell has said needs to happen.

[Anonymous]

Instaed of seeeking the advice and consent of the Senate on a nominee, Trump has relied on the advice and consent of right wing extremists to make his pick. Contrast that to Obama who did not pick radicals, but centrists, that 60+ Senators of both parties supported.

[Anonymous]

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.

Well he didn’t sail through last time, but maybe it will be different this time. Here’s a plausible argument: unlike seven of the other justices on the court who needed 60 advice and consent votes, Kavanaugh will only need 51, meaning the pick will not be a consensus. He won’t get 60 votes. The Senate does not see him as a solid pick like the other seven. Better picks are available.

Here’s another plausible argument not to confirm. Mitch McConnell has now established a rule that justices should not be confirmed in an election year. 33 Senators could lose their jobs in November. What’s the rush? Why should these senators get a say when they could be out of a job in just 4 months? Let the people decide; it’s what Mitch McConnell has said needs to happen.

Nice try, friend.
I doubt ANY nominee would get 60 votes in today’s partisan environment. You know that Scalia was confirmed 98 - 0?
And, as for your second argument.... You left off a critical point in McConnell’s statement. He said - in a “presidential” election year.