In fact they were both confirmed by large majorities. Kavanaugh, not so much.
Guilty until proven guilty is a hard leftist thing brought to America to get Kavanaugh
- Thread starter resident_evil
- Start date
No. I agree he was a good candidate and selection for the Supreme Court. Thanks for stopping.
He made an accusation based on simple logic and you support that...as opposed to supporting the accusation of someone claiming to have been a victim of the guy and who apparently knew both Kavanaugh and Judge pretty well. She described his drinking habits as corroborated by Judge's book. Do you honestly think she was lying about that?
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
It wasn't "hurried" at all. In fact, it was repeatedly delayed while Democrats bandied about completely fabricated reasons for him to be denied the seat on the USSC. Was his confirmation process longer or shorter than Kagan's and Sotomayor's? Elections have consequences...
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Again, precisely. Not because Kavanaugh was not well qualified (he obviously was), but because the Democrats threw a political shit fit! The Republicans did no such thing when Kagan and Sotomayor were nominated.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Yes. I think she lied about everything. That was simply a good guess.
Would you withstand someone saying you drank to excess as a teenager? If so, you were way out of the mainstream.
I don't remember any real controversy over Kagan or Sotomayor.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Because they were "qualified." As is Kavanaugh. Are any of them "suitable?" Not by my measure, but that's not the standard.
Whether or not he drank was not the question. The evidence that he did, added to the accusation that when drunk he attempted to force himself on Ford, was the issue.
A good guess? Wow.
"Well qualified"? So was Merrick Garland.
resident_evil
Senator
And yet he wasn't consented to by the Senate. You know just because he's a white guy doesn't mean he was entitled to the job.
ha ha
He was never brought to a vote by the senate. His nomination was held up by the judicial committee by the republicans and the only reason was he was nominated by the democratic president. If that is the new standard then the dems should have the same right.
resident_evil
Senator
Right, he was NOT consented to by the Senate. What don't you get?
When the presidency is in one party's hands and the Senate is in another party's hands during the president's last year of his term a Justice has not been confirmed.
Last edited:
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Yes, he was. You seem to enjoy researching my posts - go see if you can find one where I defended the Republicans for rejecting his nomination.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
LOL! He drank, therefor he is a rapist? Really? That is your position here?
You become more risible with every post you make.
resident_evil
Senator
The Republicans ran the Senate. They are to advise and consent. They didn't consent. So what?
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
They should have gave him the vote. They didn't because he was certainly well qualified and they would have been pilloried for voting against him.
resident_evil
Senator
NO vote was better for Merrick than a vote NO.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
He was certainly way better than Kagen or Sotomayor. At least I don't think he is a commie.
In fact, if the Dems get control of the Senate I wouldn't be surprised if Trump renominates him (if he gets another pick).
you become more childish with every reply
Latest posts
-
-
-
Biden claims uncle was eaten by Cannibals…- Latest: Bugsy McGurk
