Hat tip to Trump for his unassailable SCOTUS pick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That is just a laughable statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, he doesn’t. That’s all speculation. (I guess I can see why you’re “conservative.”)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, he doesn’t. That’s all speculation. (I guess I can see why you’re “conservative.”)

DP here. If it’s “speculation,” how do you know he doesn’t hold these views?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You reap what you sow.

Such a profound, thoughtful post that adds so much to the discussion.
(Try again).

[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.

merrick Garland. Unassailable.

Pish.

But....at some point in the future, trump should throw them a bone by pressing for Garland (at next vacancy)

I’ve slways thought he COULD have been our best (and still yet least capable) non-partisan pres...if he wanted to be

[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.

Based on professional credentials, he meets the minimum qualifications. But he will have one of the largest paper trails, and his commemts about the president and criminal investigations will resonate negatively with the public in a way that more abstract legal arguments will not. He will have one of the more difficult confirmation processes of the possible nominees.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You reap what you sow.

So true, as Harry Reid et al learned.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You reap what you sow.

Such a profound, thoughtful post that adds so much to the discussion.
(Try again).

How about "scorched earth is bad politics"?

Yeah, that doesn't add much either, I guess.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Gorusch was the first Supreme Court justice approved with less than 60 votes, so no, not impossible to get 60 votes in recent times.

[Anonymous]

Just a reminder: Justice Kennedy’s son made a billion dollars in loans to Trump from the Russia infested and sanctioned Deutche Bank.

Kennedy negotiated the appointment of Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Kavanaugh in 2012 law review article:

"Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel."

"Criminal investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President."

ergo, absent such a law, the President according to Kavanaugh—while in office—is subject to criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder: Justice Kennedy’s son made a billion dollars in loans to Trump from the Russia infested and sanctioned Deutche Bank.

Kennedy negotiated the appointment of Kavanaugh.

There is ZERO proof of your last statement other than an unsourced report from a partisan media organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder: Justice Kennedy’s son made a billion dollars in loans to Trump from the Russia infested and sanctioned Deutche Bank.

Kennedy negotiated the appointment of Kavanaugh.

There is ZERO proof of your last statement other than an unsourced report from a partisan media organization.

I trust the organization, you don't. If it is proven true, would you still attack the messenger or will you evaluate the message?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You reap what you sow.

Elections have consequences.