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.
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.
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?
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.
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.![]()
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.![]()
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/
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?
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.”
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?
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.
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/