Hat tip to Trump for his unassailable SCOTUS pick

[Anonymous]

Safe pick. Keeps the Republican establishment happy, impeccable credentials, young, and without ruffling the likes of Collins et al. Kavanaugh always knew he was a potential SC pick, so he led his life and wrote his opinions accordingly.

And we have Amy Coney Barrett warming up "on the bench" in case there is another vacancy in the next few years with a larger Republican majority in the Senate, especially if it is a woman justice to be replaced.

Fine time to be alive, especially if you drink progressive tears with your morning coffee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Safe pick. Keeps the Republican establishment happy, impeccable credentials, young, and without ruffling the likes of Collins et al. Kavanaugh always knew he was a potential SC pick, so he led his life and wrote his opinions accordingly.

And we have Amy Coney Barrett warming up "on the bench" in case there is another vacancy in the next few years with a larger Republican majority in the Senate, especially if it is a woman justice to be replaced.

Fine time to be alive, especially if you drink progressive tears with your morning coffee.

And you believe his credit card debt was from purchasing baseball tickets, and he somehow just managed to pay it all back last year magically, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The baseball tickets story just doesn't pass the smell test.

Even less believable than John Kelly being pissy about pastries and cheese.

It really doesn’t. Heck, among the regular commenters here some of you should know this one personally.

Now something more like gambling, or spending money in things they feel entitled to, or being irresponsible or something far more nefarious # these things seem likelier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baseball tickets story just doesn't pass the smell test.

Even less believable than John Kelly being pissy about pastries and cheese.

It really doesn’t. Heck, among the regular commenters here some of you should know this one personally.

Now something more like gambling, or spending money in things they feel entitled to, or being irresponsible or something far more nefarious # these things seem likelier.

More curious about the windfall that paid it all off.

[Anonymous]

This is how you know that the Dems are prepared to vote against ANYONE nominated by this president.......

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) announced Thursday that she will oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court over concerns that he would undercut the Affordable Care Act and a landmark abortion case.

“The President vowed to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and I cannot support a nominee for a lifetime appointment who would turn back the clock on a woman’s constitutional right and freedom to make her own health care choices, including access to birth control," Baldwin said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/396768-dem-senator-kavanaugh-would-turn-back-the-clock-on-womens

The statement she made is so general. Nothing about his qualifications. Nothing about getting information from his confirmation hearing. Nope. Just a sweeping statement that she won’t support “this” nominee. Before she is able to ask any questions of him.

I guess she isn’t interested in winning reelection. She can kiss her Senate seat bye bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is how you know that the Dems are prepared to vote against ANYONE nominated by this president.......

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) announced Thursday that she will oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court over concerns that he would undercut the Affordable Care Act and a landmark abortion case.

“The President vowed to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and I cannot support a nominee for a lifetime appointment who would turn back the clock on a woman’s constitutional right and freedom to make her own health care choices, including access to birth control," Baldwin said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/396768-dem-senator-kavanaugh-would-turn-back-the-clock-on-womens

The statement she made is so general. Nothing about his qualifications. Nothing about getting information from his confirmation hearing. Nope. Just a sweeping statement that she won’t support “this” nominee. Before she is able to ask any questions of him.

I guess she isn’t interested in winning reelection. She can kiss her Senate seat bye bye.

Trump should test this theory by nominating someone moderate like Merrick Garland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[...]
Fine time to be alive, especially if you are a bit antisocial or a sociopath.

I made your last line accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how you know that the Dems are prepared to vote against ANYONE nominated by this president.......

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) announced Thursday that she will oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court over concerns that he would undercut the Affordable Care Act and a landmark abortion case.

“The President vowed to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and I cannot support a nominee for a lifetime appointment who would turn back the clock on a woman’s constitutional right and freedom to make her own health care choices, including access to birth control," Baldwin said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/396768-dem-senator-kavanaugh-would-turn-back-the-clock-on-womens

The statement she made is so general. Nothing about his qualifications. Nothing about getting information from his confirmation hearing. Nope. Just a sweeping statement that she won’t support “this” nominee. Before she is able to ask any questions of him.

I guess she isn’t interested in winning reelection. She can kiss her Senate seat bye bye.

Trump should test this theory by nominating someone moderate like Merrick Garland.

+1
Withdraw the clearly unfit because he can’t even handle his finances and who knows what other skeletons are in his closet Brett and nominate Merrick Garland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how you know that the Dems are prepared to vote against ANYONE nominated by this president.......

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) announced Thursday that she will oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court over concerns that he would undercut the Affordable Care Act and a landmark abortion case.

“The President vowed to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and I cannot support a nominee for a lifetime appointment who would turn back the clock on a woman’s constitutional right and freedom to make her own health care choices, including access to birth control," Baldwin said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/396768-dem-senator-kavanaugh-would-turn-back-the-clock-on-womens

The statement she made is so general. Nothing about his qualifications. Nothing about getting information from his confirmation hearing. Nope. Just a sweeping statement that she won’t support “this” nominee. Before she is able to ask any questions of him.

I guess she isn’t interested in winning reelection. She can kiss her Senate seat bye bye.

Trump should test this theory by nominating someone moderate like Merrick Garland.

+1
Withdraw the clearly unfit because he can’t even handle his finances and who knows what other skeletons are in his closet Brett and nominate Merrick Garland.

You can demonize him all you want. "Clearly unfit?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
If you are so worried about his finances, let the confirmation committee ask him about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how you know that the Dems are prepared to vote against ANYONE nominated by this president.......

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) announced Thursday that she will oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court over concerns that he would undercut the Affordable Care Act and a landmark abortion case.

“The President vowed to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and I cannot support a nominee for a lifetime appointment who would turn back the clock on a woman’s constitutional right and freedom to make her own health care choices, including access to birth control," Baldwin said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/396768-dem-senator-kavanaugh-would-turn-back-the-clock-on-womens

The statement she made is so general. Nothing about his qualifications. Nothing about getting information from his confirmation hearing. Nope. Just a sweeping statement that she won’t support “this” nominee. Before she is able to ask any questions of him.

I guess she isn’t interested in winning reelection. She can kiss her Senate seat bye bye.

Trump should test this theory by nominating someone moderate like Merrick Garland.

+1
Withdraw the clearly unfit because he can’t even handle his finances and who knows what other skeletons are in his closet Brett and nominate Merrick Garland.

You can demonize him all you want. "Clearly unfit?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
If you are so worried about his finances, let the confirmation committee ask him about it.

No worries, pretty sure the details will come out before the vote one way or another. There will be quite a paper trail to go through with all the emails from his time in the white house, speeches and articles (his recent speech about Rehnquist revealed quite alot), and his opinions, particularly the dissents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how you know that the Dems are prepared to vote against ANYONE nominated by this president.......

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) announced Thursday that she will oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court over concerns that he would undercut the Affordable Care Act and a landmark abortion case.

“The President vowed to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and I cannot support a nominee for a lifetime appointment who would turn back the clock on a woman’s constitutional right and freedom to make her own health care choices, including access to birth control," Baldwin said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/396768-dem-senator-kavanaugh-would-turn-back-the-clock-on-womens

The statement she made is so general. Nothing about his qualifications. Nothing about getting information from his confirmation hearing. Nope. Just a sweeping statement that she won’t support “this” nominee. Before she is able to ask any questions of him.

I guess she isn’t interested in winning reelection. She can kiss her Senate seat bye bye.

Trump should test this theory by nominating someone moderate like Merrick Garland.

+1
Withdraw the clearly unfit because he can’t even handle his finances and who knows what other skeletons are in his closet Brett and nominate Merrick Garland.

You can demonize him all you want. "Clearly unfit?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
If you are so worried about his finances, let the confirmation committee ask him about it.

No worries, pretty sure the details will come out before the vote one way or another. There will be quite a paper trail to go through with all the emails from his time in the white house, speeches and articles (his recent speech about Rehnquist revealed quite alot), and his opinions, particularly the dissents.

It's a rubber-stamp. No one in Congress cares at all about the lengthy paper trail, one way or the other. They're either going to vote for him or against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how you know that the Dems are prepared to vote against ANYONE nominated by this president.......

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) announced Thursday that she will oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court over concerns that he would undercut the Affordable Care Act and a landmark abortion case.

“The President vowed to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and I cannot support a nominee for a lifetime appointment who would turn back the clock on a woman’s constitutional right and freedom to make her own health care choices, including access to birth control," Baldwin said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/396768-dem-senator-kavanaugh-would-turn-back-the-clock-on-womens

The statement she made is so general. Nothing about his qualifications. Nothing about getting information from his confirmation hearing. Nope. Just a sweeping statement that she won’t support “this” nominee. Before she is able to ask any questions of him.

I guess she isn’t interested in winning reelection. She can kiss her Senate seat bye bye.

Trump should test this theory by nominating someone moderate like Merrick Garland.

+1
Withdraw the clearly unfit because he can’t even handle his finances and who knows what other skeletons are in his closet Brett and nominate Merrick Garland.

You can demonize him all you want. "Clearly unfit?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
If you are so worried about his finances, let the confirmation committee ask him about it.

No worries, pretty sure the details will come out before the vote one way or another. There will be quite a paper trail to go through with all the emails from his time in the white house, speeches and articles (his recent speech about Rehnquist revealed quite alot), and his opinions, particularly the dissents.

It's a rubber-stamp. No one in Congress cares at all about the lengthy paper trail, one way or the other. They're either going to vote for him or against him.

Oh, they care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can demonize him all you want. "Clearly unfit?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
If you are so worried about his finances, let the confirmation committee ask him about it.

I’m not demonizing him. Merely pointing out that he couldn’t get a clearance for a GS-7 desk job with that kind of debt. What is it from? How did he have the same debt for so long? Who paid it off? Why? Will it recur? Who will pay his debt off then, and what will he owe them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is how you know that the Dems are prepared to vote against ANYONE nominated by this president.......

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) announced Thursday that she will oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court over concerns that he would undercut the Affordable Care Act and a landmark abortion case.

“The President vowed to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and I cannot support a nominee for a lifetime appointment who would turn back the clock on a woman’s constitutional right and freedom to make her own health care choices, including access to birth control," Baldwin said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/396768-dem-senator-kavanaugh-would-turn-back-the-clock-on-womens

The statement she made is so general. Nothing about his qualifications. Nothing about getting information from his confirmation hearing. Nope. Just a sweeping statement that she won’t support “this” nominee. Before she is able to ask any questions of him.

I guess she isn’t interested in winning reelection. She can kiss her Senate seat bye bye.

No Senator in a swing state is worried about not voting for an elitist who had every privilege in life and goes into debt to buy $200K worth of baseball tickets. He's just like us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can demonize him all you want. "Clearly unfit?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
If you are so worried about his finances, let the confirmation committee ask him about it.

I’m not demonizing him. Merely pointing out that he couldn’t get a clearance for a GS-7 desk job with that kind of debt. What is it from? How did he have the same debt for so long? Who paid it off? Why? Will it recur? Who will pay his debt off then, and what will he owe them?

So maybe better for Trump to nominate someone with an unproven track record?