Challenge for our leftie friends

As I am watching the Kavanaugh hearings I am struck by the astro turf protests and lefties being hauled out of the proceedings. Grassley is handling it masterfully.

It made me wonder if our lefty friends can provide examples of similar behavior from the right during the Kagan and Soromayor confirmation hearings.

Thanks for your participation.

One, if you look up hayseed, shit-kicking cracker with the IQ of an ice cube and the face of roadkill in the dictionary, you see Chuck Grassley's picture

Two, I'm not worried about Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, or Breyer,

I'm worried about the despicable assholes put in office by Republican low lifes.
 
Bottom line, you're so sure you won't take my bet; no surprise.

You do not seem to have followed what I wrote. I'm not claiming that Trump will be indicted. In fact, I expect he will not be, despite the clear evidence of criminal behavior on his part. So why would I bet that he will be indicted?
 
Yes it does. In theory, the President can nominate anyone since that is one of the two requirements. In practice, the 6 month old, a felon, or his dog would't be confirmed which is the second requirement. The idea the founders had was that of checks/balances. However, the founders didn't not believe the practice of denying should be based on political party affiliation or ideology which is the exact and ONLY reason you left wing fuckers oppose Kavanaugh. If you think party politics is distorting the process, stop playing party politics.

As you're well aware, the opposition to Kavanaugh cannot be explained strictly by his party. John Roberts, for example, was a Republican appointee and was confirmed 78-22 by a Senate consisting of a great many of the same people. Less extreme Republicans have done even better. For example, David Souter, the last center-right nominee, was confirmed 90-9 by a Democrat-controlled Senate. Several other modern Republican nominees have been approved without a single dissenting vote (Kennedy, Scalia, O'Connor, Stevens, Blackmun). But Kavanaugh has a few things against him:

(1) He's an extremist.
(2) He is expected to shift the status quo in the court dramatically, including overturning the long-standing Roe v. Wade precedent.
(3) He is stonewalling requests for documents that Senators want to review and that they traditionally had been allowed to see.
(4) He comes in the wake of the cynical Republican stunt regarding Garland, when Republicans put party ahead of the nation to an unprecedented degree, to steal a Supreme Court seat. As such, they have no remaining moral authority on the matter with which to back Kavanaugh.
 
You do not seem to have followed what I wrote. I'm not claiming that Trump will be indicted. In fact, I expect he will not be, despite the clear evidence of criminal behavior on his part. So why would I bet that he will be indicted?

There is no clear evidence of criminal behavior. But keep parroting that dimwitted leftist lie. It exposes you for the hack you are.
 
As you're well aware, the opposition to Kavanaugh cannot be explained strictly by his party. John Roberts, for example, was a Republican appointee and was confirmed 78-22 by a Senate consisting of a great many of the same people. Less extreme Republicans have done even better. For example, David Souter, the last center-right nominee, was confirmed 90-9 by a Democrat-controlled Senate. Several other modern Republican nominees have been approved without a single dissenting vote (Kennedy, Scalia, O'Connor, Stevens, Blackmun). But Kavanaugh has a few things against him:

(1) He's an extremist.
(2) He is expected to shift the status quo in the court dramatically, including overturning the long-standing Roe v. Wade precedent.
(3) He is stonewalling requests for documents that Senators want to review and that they traditionally had been allowed to see.
(4) He comes in the wake of the cynical Republican stunt regarding Garland, when Republicans put party ahead of the nation to an unprecedented degree, to steal a Supreme Court seat. As such, they have no remaining moral authority on the matter with which to back Kavanaugh.

Another laughable pile of narrative bile and stupid. Kavanaugh an extremist? That is all we need to know about the rest of your bullshit screed.

Let's try to be honest here for once in your pathetic existence, the only reason the Democratic Party of the Jackass is suddenly now finding him unacceptable to serve, because he was perfectly fine in a more active role on the Federal bench, is that he was nominated by Trump and Democrats lost an election.

STFU, seriously.
 
There is no clear evidence of criminal behavior. But keep parroting that dimwitted leftist lie. It exposes you for the hack you are.

I laid out the evidence for obstruction of justice earlier in the thread. Feel free to reread it. As for other crimes, such as conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations, those crimes cannot be proven just by Trump's own statements. But, in that case, we have something nearly as good, since his own lawyer swore it happened.
 
I laid out the evidence for obstruction of justice earlier in the thread. Feel free to reread it.

Wrong; you posted a bunch of lunatic garbage that merely parrots the shrill claims of the left. There is NOTHING substantive to it as evidenced by the FACT that nothing has been charged and will ever be charged because they are baseless lunatic liberal claims.

As for other crimes, such as conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations, those crimes cannot be proven just by Trump's own statements. But, in that case, we have something nearly as good, since his own lawyer swore it happened.

In other words, once again you have NOTHING and merely bloviated dunce speak. Yay you! STFU, seriously.
 
Another laughable pile of narrative bile and stupid. Kavanaugh an extremist?

Yes. Have you read up on his rulings?

Let's try to be honest here for once in your pathetic existence, the only reason the Democratic Party of the Jackass is suddenly now finding him unacceptable to serve, because he was perfectly fine in a more active role on the Federal bench, is that he was nominated by Trump and Democrats lost an election.

Reread what I wrote. There's ample modern history of the majority of Democrats voting for a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court. So, clearly there's more going on than just being miffed they lost the election.

If your argument is that Trump's vileness is different, and that the fact the appointment was by him and not by, say, Bush, gives Kavanaugh an uphill climb, that's probably part of what's going on. Trump is the most unpopular president in American history, judging by his average approval ratings, and he's absolutely despised by the large majority of people outside of clusters of conservative power. That means very few Democrats in the Senate will be hurt by being seen as resisting him. Quite the contrary, the real danger lies in losing a primary if one is seen as collaborating with him.

But, I don't think that's the whole story, either. I think that if Trump had picked someone widely respected, like Richard Posner, and the nominee had been forthcoming in response to document requests, the Dems would have decided there were other hills they'd rather fight defending, and would have approved him with relatively little drama.... as they approved a few other widely respected Trump appointees.

For example, consider Jerome Powell. People on the left were disappointed that Trump rejected a highly qualified Fed Chair, Janet Yellen, in favor of putting his own stamp on the Fed. But, they had to admit Powell wasn't an extremist or ideologue, and that he had ample experience and qualifications, and so ultimately he was approved by a vote of 84-13 (with some of the Nays coming from Republicans, like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul). So, we know for a fact that Democrats don't just automatically oppose anyone Trump nominates to a key position. When he picks someone good, most Democrats will vote to confirm. When, on the other hand, he picks an extremist, they resist.

Now, I'm curious, did you not know that?
 
As you're well aware, the opposition to Kavanaugh cannot be explained strictly by his party. John Roberts, for example, was a Republican appointee and was confirmed 78-22 by a Senate consisting of a great many of the same people. Less extreme Republicans have done even better. For example, David Souter, the last center-right nominee, was confirmed 90-9 by a Democrat-controlled Senate. Several other modern Republican nominees have been approved without a single dissenting vote (Kennedy, Scalia, O'Connor, Stevens, Blackmun). But Kavanaugh has a few things against him:

(1) He's an extremist.
(2) He is expected to shift the status quo in the court dramatically, including overturning the long-standing Roe v. Wade precedent.
(3) He is stonewalling requests for documents that Senators want to review and that they traditionally had been allowed to see.
(4) He comes in the wake of the cynical Republican stunt regarding Garland, when Republicans put party ahead of the nation to an unprecedented degree, to steal a Supreme Court seat. As such, they have no remaining moral authority on the matter with which to back Kavanaugh.

1) You not liking what he says doesn't make him an extremist
2) Plessy v. Ferguson was long standing precedent. Again, you don't agree, therefore, you oppose.
3) You mean like a birth certificate that took 3 years to provide?
4) You mean using the same mindset that Joe Biden approved of in 1992?

You fuckheads lost in 2016. To quote your black boy, "elections have consequences, you lost, get over it."
 
As I am watching the Kavanaugh hearings I am struck by the astro turf protests and lefties being hauled out of the proceedings. Grassley is handling it masterfully.

It made me wonder if our lefty friends can provide examples of similar behavior from the right during the Kagan and Soromayor confirmation hearings.

Thanks for your participation.

Did they withhold 100,000 pages from the public in advance of the Kagan or Sotamayor confirmation hearings? Was that before or after they stole the Merrick Garland seat?
 
Yes. Have you read up on his rulings?

Reread what I wrote. There's ample modern history of the majority of Democrats voting for a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court. So, clearly there's more going on than just being miffed they lost the election.

If your argument is that Trump's vileness is different, and that the fact the appointment was by him and not by, say, Bush, gives Kavanaugh an uphill climb, that's probably part of what's going on. Trump is the most unpopular president in American history, judging by his average approval ratings, and he's absolutely despised by the large majority of people outside of clusters of conservative power. That means very few Democrats in the Senate will be hurt by being seen as resisting him. Quite the contrary, the real danger lies in losing a primary if one is seen as collaborating with him.

But, I don't think that's the whole story, either. I think that if Trump had picked someone widely respected, like Richard Posner, and the nominee had been forthcoming in response to document requests, the Dems would have decided there were other hills they'd rather fight defending, and would have approved him with relatively little drama.... as they approved a few other widely respected Trump appointees.

For example, consider Jerome Powell. People on the left were disappointed that Trump rejected a highly qualified Fed Chair, Janet Yellen, in favor of putting his own stamp on the Fed. But, they had to admit Powell wasn't an extremist or ideologue, and that he had ample experience and qualifications, and so ultimately he was approved by a vote of 84-13 (with some of the Nays coming from Republicans, like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul). So, we know for a fact that Democrats don't just automatically oppose anyone Trump nominates to a key position. When he picks someone good, most Democrats will vote to confirm. When, on the other hand, he picks an extremist, they resist.

Now, I'm curious, did you not know that?

Translation:
giphy.gif
 
Did they withhold 100,000 pages from the public in advance of the Kagan or Sotamayor confirmation hearings? Was that before or after they stole the Merrick Garland seat?

:lolup:Dishonest dunce still pretending that even a million documents would change the FACT that Democrats are not going to vote for anyone Trump nominates in their desperate flailing and refusal to accept the FACT that they lost an election. :rofl2:
 
Did they withhold 100,000 pages from the public in advance of the Kagan or Sotamayor confirmation hearings? Was that before or after they stole the Merrick Garland seat?

Blame Joe Biden for Garland's situation. He approved of how that was handled over 25 years ago.
 
Back
Top