Hat tip to Trump for his unassailable SCOTUS pick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Queue the drama queens.

If you want to mock, first learn to spell.

[Anonymous]

Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before it turns hatefully negative, I agree with you. He was the safe pick with the least visible negatives for the democrats to gain traction, Should get the red state dem votes. They cannot afford not to.

Well that didn't take long.

He is highly qualified. In the old days he will be confirmed 95 - 0. Even John McCain likes him. Graduated Yale law school, 12 years on the DC circuit, hired by liberal Kagan to teach at Harvard Law ... What more do you want?

It took three years to get him on the DC Court of Appeals back in the Bush administration because of serious concerns about his judicial temperament so, no, and he didn’t even get 60 votes when he was eventually comfirmed. Those pesky facts, always denying conservatives the fairy tales they try to spread.

You know it had to do with his age and whether he was old enough to possess judicial temperament. I am Jeb educated and continue to share with Kavanaugh the Jesuit motto of "Men for others." I am a lefty but I respect Kavanaugh's values.

Troll, no one on the left supports stripping others of their rights, so you certainly do not share our values.

The oppposition was based on his activist regressive views and his stubborness and unwillingness to consider all sides of an issue.

The right just never stops lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

+1 exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Bork started it with Watergate, so it really is on the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Actually, some senate Republicans also voted against Bork, he was that bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Nominees have been rejected several times since the beginning of the nation. George Washington's recess appointment of John Rutledge as Chief Justice was rejected in 1795. Nixon had 2 nominees rejected in 1969 and 1970. Please read more history to get a better perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Bork was a Neanderthal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Bork was a Neanderthal.

in your most humble opinion?

[Anonymous]

Brett is gonna make the liberals look even more stupid, which I didn’t think was possible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brett is gonna make the liberals look even more stupid, which I didn’t think was possible

Does he know how to use basic punctuation and grammar? Because that would definitely distinguish him from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Nominees have been rejected several times since the beginning of the nation. George Washington's recess appointment of John Rutledge as Chief Justice was rejected in 1795. Nixon had 2 nominees rejected in 1969 and 1970. Please read more history to get a better perspective.

There's a reason that the name Bork is used when attacking someone through organized vilification. He was treated terribly.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bork

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Nominees have been rejected several times since the beginning of the nation. George Washington's recess appointment of John Rutledge as Chief Justice was rejected in 1795. Nixon had 2 nominees rejected in 1969 and 1970. Please read more history to get a better perspective.

There's a reason that the name Bork is used when attacking someone through organized vilification. He was treated terribly.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bork

Go back a little further and read about how terribly Bork treated the rule of law during the Nixon administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland. His treatment during the DC Circuit nomination and during the Supreme Court nomination is ample evidence of how much Republicans have politicized appointments.

You can no longer expect passive acceptance of a judge based on resume. You created this problem, now live with it.

Actually, the Democrats started it with Bork.

Bork was a Neanderthal.

He was likely only 2% Neanderthal.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/