OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

[Faun]

Nah, just pointing out you’re a raving lunatic; as evidenced by you suggesting he could have raped little children because he takes these investigations seriously.

Many of these politicians are raping little children, this is why any suggestion of Organised Paedophile Rings NEVER gets investigated, but you of course are a Leftist Troll Tool who supports EVERYTHING The State tells you to support and being a Leftist Troll Tool you would NEVER question if The State is sordid and dirty, it's your type who are the raving lunatics.

LOLOL

Thanks for reminding everyone what a raving lunatic you are. Wasn’t necessary, but thanks just the same. Meanwhile, good luck confirming Kavanaugh without Flake, Collins and Murkowski.

Go away Troll Tool Boi, now who's supporting rape? Oh that's right YOU, you like the majority of Leftist Troll Tools don't CARE if children are being raped in Organised Paedophile Rings OR if children are being Trafficked to be raped, you INSIST NONE of this even happens, so that makes your type COMPLICIT.

Dumbfuck, you have absolutely zero evidence that Flake is involved in any way, shape or form with any pedophile ring.

How much more evidence do you need to show the forum how big of a ranting lunatic you really are?

very true.

we also have absolutely zero evidence kavanaugh did any of this.

we're making evidence meaningless. wheee, look at us!

Not true. Dr. Ford’s testimony is evidence.

 

[AZGAL]

The real reason Dr. Ford can’t go to the police with this now is because the statute of limitations expired some 35 years ago.

NO IT DID NOT in the proper jurisdiction. the Senate Judiciary committee went over that in detail.

 

[forkup]

I'm not slotted for an appointment to the supreme court. Neither is your accusation credible because you can't point to anything specific in my writing style that gives that accusation credence. I can and I have, to you I believe stated facts that point to corroboration that Ford did speak the truth. I also want to point out that the judiciary committee has taken steps to insure they would not get some of that corroboration.

lady justice is blind for a reason and that reason is the law is the same to us all. his appointment has no bearing on how we follow the rule of law.

Iceberg, sorry, to me that's a self serving abdication of responsibility. First as has been stated. The confirmation process is political not judicial. That does NOT have the standard of proof that a judicial matter has. The only question should be if Ford is believable, and if she is if that doubt does or doesn't disqualify for the bench. Beyond reasonable doubt does not feature in that equation.
Neither is the presumption of innocence ever been a problem when going after Hillary or Al Franken.
Look, I understand by talking to you that you hold your beliefs in good faith, I also believe that you try to be fair. But ask yourself this question. If you are a parent of let's say a children's softball team and you have reason to believe that the guy is applying to be the coach might be a child molester. Would the fact that you're not certain he is, stop you from objecting? You are suggesting to put on the Supreme Court somebody credibly accused of sexual assault. Should certainty of the allegation really stop you from opposing him?

SO -

let me be clear. you're now saying an accusation is enough to convict someone and put them on par with a softball coach child molester who's had a trial, been found guilty, and did whatever time they were committed to?

what you're in the end suggesting is that the accusation is enough. the left seems to be counting on this in an emotional game of "ball control" to run out the clock.

in return - i also think you hold your own beliefs in good faith. look forward to talking to you as we move into this strange ass future we're creating today. but let me ask you, if someone said *you* committed sexual assault on them way in the past, should we automatically believe the accuser, or go through our judicial system as setup and running for hundreds of years?

as for your question - i'd look them up online cause you can find it now and if true, my child does something else with their time. done.

No I was making an analogy. I was pointing out that, there are times when the judicial standard does not matter in assessing someones qualifications for a particular job.

if you're going to accuse them of a crime, we then have:

1) our court system that would entail going to the LOCAL police at the time of the incident
or
2) court of public opinion and may the loudest win.

is whoever is loudest and most emotional now the bar we're setting in how to approve our SCOTUS nominations? if so, fine. game on and like i said, count on the right to come back with a 'hold my beer' cause we keep getting cute here vs. realizing what we're doing to this country *ALL GOD DAMN SIDES* love.

Did you miss that we crossed the Rubicon in that regard a long time ago? Innocent until proven guilty didn't prevent you from going after Al Franken, neither did it stop you from going after Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and more then likely way more. I'm not going to say I find that bad or even out of bounds in a place like this. I'll even go as far that I probably have changed my position on this somewhere in the past for opportunistic reasons. I don't know when but I'd be surprised if I haven't. But can you please do me the favor of keeping your indignation of hanging an man on the PRESUMPTION of guilt to a minimum. I actually do appreciate talking to you and I don't want to be that guy that slaps you around with previous posts to much.
-We are ALL partisan here, to a more or less extent. That is a fact.
-The court of public opinion is often the only thing you have when assessing who you believe. that's not nefarious or necessarily wrong.
-A judicial nomination is NOT a judicial matter. Another fact.

 

[Faun]

After watching this whole charade, my conclusion is that Christine Blasey Ford has a selective memory and can't remember anything that would lead to evidence in the case. She only remembers those things that keep her experience a mystery. Since American's have been taught about a presumption of innocence and unless there is EVIDENCE to suggest he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I find Kavanaugh innocent and worthy to be our next supreme court judge.

LOL

It’s not up to you. It’s up to the Senate. And confirmed or not, it’s going to be very close and could go either way no matter what you find.

 

[Faun]

You are Trolling as usual.

Nah, just pointing out you’re a raving lunatic; as evidenced by you suggesting he could have raped little children because he takes these investigations seriously.

Many of these politicians are raping little children, this is why any suggestion of Organised Paedophile Rings NEVER gets investigated, but you of course are a Leftist Troll Tool who supports EVERYTHING The State tells you to support and being a Leftist Troll Tool you would NEVER question if The State is sordid and dirty, it's your type who are the raving lunatics.

LOLOL

Thanks for reminding everyone what a raving lunatic you are. Wasn’t necessary, but thanks just the same. Meanwhile, good luck confirming Kavanaugh without Flake, Collins and Murkowski.

The three weaklings of the party.

Weaklings? They may hold Kavanaugh’s future in your their hands.

 

[The Purge]

The Left vs. Kavanaugh: Desperate Smears by Democracy's Losers

In a nutshell, this explains what is going on with the vicious and vile leftist Democrat character assassination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.



"Political" here does not refer to Republicans versus Democrats, or the desire of Trump-haters to stick it to the president. This article uses "political" to describe the struggle over "who gets what when and how." In a self-governing republic, the "how" consists of decisions by elected representatives. The Kavanaugh fight is really a fight between those who believe in the Framers' republic and those who want to destroy that republic.



To paraphrase the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia, he frequently told political combatants: "If you want policies not mandated or prohibited by the United States Constitution, don't ask judges to impose what you want but, instead, persuade your fellow citizens." What are today's leftists to do if they can't persuade their fellow citizens to buy their nostrums? What if these leftists are like the communists once described by Justice William O. Douglas as "miserable merchants of unwanted ideas" they cannot sell? In my book, Equal Justice for Victims, I wrote:



Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I have a dream. My dream is that one day the United States will elect a president who dares to explain to the American people that, on controversial questions, the Supreme Court is a political and not a legal institution; and that justices practice their politics by pretending to "interpret" and apply the law and the Constitution.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com

 

[AZGAL]

The Prez has the upper hand in this investigation and it should include investigating Dr. Christine Blasé Ford. We must demand she and Sweet twat are investigated now.

 

[iceberg]

lady justice is blind for a reason and that reason is the law is the same to us all. his appointment has no bearing on how we follow the rule of law.

Iceberg, sorry, to me that's a self serving abdication of responsibility. First as has been stated. The confirmation process is political not judicial. That does NOT have the standard of proof that a judicial matter has. The only question should be if Ford is believable, and if she is if that doubt does or doesn't disqualify for the bench. Beyond reasonable doubt does not feature in that equation.
Neither is the presumption of innocence ever been a problem when going after Hillary or Al Franken.
Look, I understand by talking to you that you hold your beliefs in good faith, I also believe that you try to be fair. But ask yourself this question. If you are a parent of let's say a children's softball team and you have reason to believe that the guy is applying to be the coach might be a child molester. Would the fact that you're not certain he is, stop you from objecting? You are suggesting to put on the Supreme Court somebody credibly accused of sexual assault. Should certainty of the allegation really stop you from opposing him?

SO -

let me be clear. you're now saying an accusation is enough to convict someone and put them on par with a softball coach child molester who's had a trial, been found guilty, and did whatever time they were committed to?

what you're in the end suggesting is that the accusation is enough. the left seems to be counting on this in an emotional game of "ball control" to run out the clock.

in return - i also think you hold your own beliefs in good faith. look forward to talking to you as we move into this strange ass future we're creating today. but let me ask you, if someone said *you* committed sexual assault on them way in the past, should we automatically believe the accuser, or go through our judicial system as setup and running for hundreds of years?

as for your question - i'd look them up online cause you can find it now and if true, my child does something else with their time. done.

No I was making an analogy. I was pointing out that, there are times when the judicial standard does not matter in assessing someones qualifications for a particular job.

if you're going to accuse them of a crime, we then have:

1) our court system that would entail going to the LOCAL police at the time of the incident
or
2) court of public opinion and may the loudest win.

is whoever is loudest and most emotional now the bar we're setting in how to approve our SCOTUS nominations? if so, fine. game on and like i said, count on the right to come back with a 'hold my beer' cause we keep getting cute here vs. realizing what we're doing to this country *ALL GOD DAMN SIDES* love.

Did you miss that we crossed the Rubicon in that regard a long time ago? Innocent until proven guilty didn't prevent you from going after Al Franken, neither did it stop you from going after Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and more then likely way more. I'm not going to say I find that bad or even out of bounds in a place like this. I'll even go as far that I probably have changed my position on this somewhere in the past for opportunistic reasons. I don't know when but I'd be surprised if I haven't. But can you please do me the favor of keeping your indignation of hanging an man on the PRESUMPTION of guilt to a minimum. I actually do appreciate talking to you and I don't want to be that guy that slaps you around with previous posts to much.
-We are ALL partisan here, to a more or less extent. That is a fact.
-The court of public opinion is often the only thing you have when assessing who you believe. that's not nefarious or necessarily wrong.
-A judicial nomination is NOT a judicial matter. Another fact.

*i* never went after franken. all i said was this is what you get when you let the mob rule.

 

[Tilly]

see if it matches with what she described about the house, the stairwell going up,

Funny thing, houses usually have ‘stairwells’ that ‘go up’.
You are seriously, desperately nuts.

 

[forkup]

Iceberg, sorry, to me that's a self serving abdication of responsibility. First as has been stated. The confirmation process is political not judicial. That does NOT have the standard of proof that a judicial matter has. The only question should be if Ford is believable, and if she is if that doubt does or doesn't disqualify for the bench. Beyond reasonable doubt does not feature in that equation.
Neither is the presumption of innocence ever been a problem when going after Hillary or Al Franken.
Look, I understand by talking to you that you hold your beliefs in good faith, I also believe that you try to be fair. But ask yourself this question. If you are a parent of let's say a children's softball team and you have reason to believe that the guy is applying to be the coach might be a child molester. Would the fact that you're not certain he is, stop you from objecting? You are suggesting to put on the Supreme Court somebody credibly accused of sexual assault. Should certainty of the allegation really stop you from opposing him?

SO -

let me be clear. you're now saying an accusation is enough to convict someone and put them on par with a softball coach child molester who's had a trial, been found guilty, and did whatever time they were committed to?

what you're in the end suggesting is that the accusation is enough. the left seems to be counting on this in an emotional game of "ball control" to run out the clock.

in return - i also think you hold your own beliefs in good faith. look forward to talking to you as we move into this strange ass future we're creating today. but let me ask you, if someone said *you* committed sexual assault on them way in the past, should we automatically believe the accuser, or go through our judicial system as setup and running for hundreds of years?

as for your question - i'd look them up online cause you can find it now and if true, my child does something else with their time. done.

No I was making an analogy. I was pointing out that, there are times when the judicial standard does not matter in assessing someones qualifications for a particular job.

if you're going to accuse them of a crime, we then have:

1) our court system that would entail going to the LOCAL police at the time of the incident
or
2) court of public opinion and may the loudest win.

is whoever is loudest and most emotional now the bar we're setting in how to approve our SCOTUS nominations? if so, fine. game on and like i said, count on the right to come back with a 'hold my beer' cause we keep getting cute here vs. realizing what we're doing to this country *ALL GOD DAMN SIDES* love.

Did you miss that we crossed the Rubicon in that regard a long time ago? Innocent until proven guilty didn't prevent you from going after Al Franken, neither did it stop you from going after Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and more then likely way more. I'm not going to say I find that bad or even out of bounds in a place like this. I'll even go as far that I probably have changed my position on this somewhere in the past for opportunistic reasons. I don't know when but I'd be surprised if I haven't. But can you please do me the favor of keeping your indignation of hanging an man on the PRESUMPTION of guilt to a minimum. I actually do appreciate talking to you and I don't want to be that guy that slaps you around with previous posts to much.
-We are ALL partisan here, to a more or less extent. That is a fact.
-The court of public opinion is often the only thing you have when assessing who you believe. that's not nefarious or necessarily wrong.
-A judicial nomination is NOT a judicial matter. Another fact.

*i* never went after franken. all i said was this is what you get when you let the mob rule.

You asserted that he should resign. You also asserted that Clinton took flights on "Lolita express" flights. Not for nothing pretty salacious. As I said I don't hold it against you but feeling the need to linking an article that all but accuses Clinton of being a pedophile or covering for one seems even a bit worse then what Kavanaugh is accused of. Presumption of innocence did not cross your mind there I dare to guess.

 

[iceberg]

SO -

let me be clear. you're now saying an accusation is enough to convict someone and put them on par with a softball coach child molester who's had a trial, been found guilty, and did whatever time they were committed to?

what you're in the end suggesting is that the accusation is enough. the left seems to be counting on this in an emotional game of "ball control" to run out the clock.

in return - i also think you hold your own beliefs in good faith. look forward to talking to you as we move into this strange ass future we're creating today. but let me ask you, if someone said *you* committed sexual assault on them way in the past, should we automatically believe the accuser, or go through our judicial system as setup and running for hundreds of years?

as for your question - i'd look them up online cause you can find it now and if true, my child does something else with their time. done.

No I was making an analogy. I was pointing out that, there are times when the judicial standard does not matter in assessing someones qualifications for a particular job.

if you're going to accuse them of a crime, we then have:

1) our court system that would entail going to the LOCAL police at the time of the incident
or
2) court of public opinion and may the loudest win.

is whoever is loudest and most emotional now the bar we're setting in how to approve our SCOTUS nominations? if so, fine. game on and like i said, count on the right to come back with a 'hold my beer' cause we keep getting cute here vs. realizing what we're doing to this country *ALL GOD DAMN SIDES* love.

Did you miss that we crossed the Rubicon in that regard a long time ago? Innocent until proven guilty didn't prevent you from going after Al Franken, neither did it stop you from going after Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and more then likely way more. I'm not going to say I find that bad or even out of bounds in a place like this. I'll even go as far that I probably have changed my position on this somewhere in the past for opportunistic reasons. I don't know when but I'd be surprised if I haven't. But can you please do me the favor of keeping your indignation of hanging an man on the PRESUMPTION of guilt to a minimum. I actually do appreciate talking to you and I don't want to be that guy that slaps you around with previous posts to much.
-We are ALL partisan here, to a more or less extent. That is a fact.
-The court of public opinion is often the only thing you have when assessing who you believe. that's not nefarious or necessarily wrong.
-A judicial nomination is NOT a judicial matter. Another fact.

*i* never went after franken. all i said was this is what you get when you let the mob rule.

You asserted that he should resign. You also asserted that Clinton took flights on "Lolita express" flights. Not for nothing pretty salacious. As I said I don't hold it against you but feeling the need to linking an article that all but accuses Clinton of being a pedophile or covering for one seems even a bit worse then what Kavanaugh is accused of. Presumption of innocence did not cross your mind there I dare to guess.

the liberals made the rules.

they should follow them. of that yes, i do feel that way.

 

[Faun]

The real reason Dr. Ford can’t go to the police with this now is because the statute of limitations expired some 35 years ago.

NO IT DID NOT in the proper jurisdiction. the Senate Judiciary committee went over that in detail.

Then the committee is wrong. The state does not go by what the statute of limitations is now, it goes by what it was when the crime occurred. In Maryland, in 1982, the statute of limitations for attempted rape was 1 year.

 

[Faun]

The Left vs. Kavanaugh: Desperate Smears by Democracy's Losers

In a nutshell, this explains what is going on with the vicious and vile leftist Democrat character assassination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.



"Political" here does not refer to Republicans versus Democrats, or the desire of Trump-haters to stick it to the president. This article uses "political" to describe the struggle over "who gets what when and how." In a self-governing republic, the "how" consists of decisions by elected representatives. The Kavanaugh fight is really a fight between those who believe in the Framers' republic and those who want to destroy that republic.



To paraphrase the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia, he frequently told political combatants: "If you want policies not mandated or prohibited by the United States Constitution, don't ask judges to impose what you want but, instead, persuade your fellow citizens." What are today's leftists to do if they can't persuade their fellow citizens to buy their nostrums? What if these leftists are like the communists once described by Justice William O. Douglas as "miserable merchants of unwanted ideas" they cannot sell? In my book, Equal Justice for Victims, I wrote:



Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I have a dream. My dream is that one day the United States will elect a president who dares to explain to the American people that, on controversial questions, the Supreme Court is a political and not a legal institution; and that justices practice their politics by pretending to "interpret" and apply the law and the Constitution.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com

 

[forkup]

No I was making an analogy. I was pointing out that, there are times when the judicial standard does not matter in assessing someones qualifications for a particular job.

if you're going to accuse them of a crime, we then have:

1) our court system that would entail going to the LOCAL police at the time of the incident
or
2) court of public opinion and may the loudest win.

is whoever is loudest and most emotional now the bar we're setting in how to approve our SCOTUS nominations? if so, fine. game on and like i said, count on the right to come back with a 'hold my beer' cause we keep getting cute here vs. realizing what we're doing to this country *ALL GOD DAMN SIDES* love.

Did you miss that we crossed the Rubicon in that regard a long time ago? Innocent until proven guilty didn't prevent you from going after Al Franken, neither did it stop you from going after Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and more then likely way more. I'm not going to say I find that bad or even out of bounds in a place like this. I'll even go as far that I probably have changed my position on this somewhere in the past for opportunistic reasons. I don't know when but I'd be surprised if I haven't. But can you please do me the favor of keeping your indignation of hanging an man on the PRESUMPTION of guilt to a minimum. I actually do appreciate talking to you and I don't want to be that guy that slaps you around with previous posts to much.
-We are ALL partisan here, to a more or less extent. That is a fact.
-The court of public opinion is often the only thing you have when assessing who you believe. that's not nefarious or necessarily wrong.
-A judicial nomination is NOT a judicial matter. Another fact.

*i* never went after franken. all i said was this is what you get when you let the mob rule.

You asserted that he should resign. You also asserted that Clinton took flights on "Lolita express" flights. Not for nothing pretty salacious. As I said I don't hold it against you but feeling the need to linking an article that all but accuses Clinton of being a pedophile or covering for one seems even a bit worse then what Kavanaugh is accused of. Presumption of innocence did not cross your mind there I dare to guess.

the liberals made the rules.

they should follow them. of that yes, i do feel that way.

Well if you agree that those are the rules then don't bemoan when they are followed. I also find it interesting that you both concede that you are partisan but now seem to want to blame the Democrats for you being that way? I think that rather a convenient excuse. Can you point to something particular the Democrats did that made you decide that anything goes?

 

[iceberg]

if you're going to accuse them of a crime, we then have:

1) our court system that would entail going to the LOCAL police at the time of the incident
or
2) court of public opinion and may the loudest win.

is whoever is loudest and most emotional now the bar we're setting in how to approve our SCOTUS nominations? if so, fine. game on and like i said, count on the right to come back with a 'hold my beer' cause we keep getting cute here vs. realizing what we're doing to this country *ALL GOD DAMN SIDES* love.

Did you miss that we crossed the Rubicon in that regard a long time ago? Innocent until proven guilty didn't prevent you from going after Al Franken, neither did it stop you from going after Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and more then likely way more. I'm not going to say I find that bad or even out of bounds in a place like this. I'll even go as far that I probably have changed my position on this somewhere in the past for opportunistic reasons. I don't know when but I'd be surprised if I haven't. But can you please do me the favor of keeping your indignation of hanging an man on the PRESUMPTION of guilt to a minimum. I actually do appreciate talking to you and I don't want to be that guy that slaps you around with previous posts to much.
-We are ALL partisan here, to a more or less extent. That is a fact.
-The court of public opinion is often the only thing you have when assessing who you believe. that's not nefarious or necessarily wrong.
-A judicial nomination is NOT a judicial matter. Another fact.

*i* never went after franken. all i said was this is what you get when you let the mob rule.

You asserted that he should resign. You also asserted that Clinton took flights on "Lolita express" flights. Not for nothing pretty salacious. As I said I don't hold it against you but feeling the need to linking an article that all but accuses Clinton of being a pedophile or covering for one seems even a bit worse then what Kavanaugh is accused of. Presumption of innocence did not cross your mind there I dare to guess.

the liberals made the rules.

they should follow them. of that yes, i do feel that way.

Well if you agree that those are the rules then don't bemoan when they are followed. I also find it interesting that you both concede that you are partisan but now seem to want to blame the Democrats for you being that way? I think that rather a convenient excuse. Can you point to something particular the Democrats did that made you decide that anything goes?

when have the liberals followed their own rules when the repubs did it "in return"?

the biden rule. lame duck cant nominate. when done to obama "this is different". right did bullshit in return following a left rule.

nuclear option.

and now all this.

 

[eagle1462010]

You are Trolling as usual.

Nah, just pointing out you’re a raving lunatic; as evidenced by you suggesting he could have raped little children because he takes these investigations seriously.

Many of these politicians are raping little children, this is why any suggestion of Organised Paedophile Rings NEVER gets investigated, but you of course are a Leftist Troll Tool who supports EVERYTHING The State tells you to support and being a Leftist Troll Tool you would NEVER question if The State is sordid and dirty, it's your type who are the raving lunatics.

LOLOL

Thanks for reminding everyone what a raving lunatic you are. Wasn’t necessary, but thanks just the same. Meanwhile, good luck confirming Kavanaugh without Flake, Collins and Murkowski.

The three weaklings of the party.

Weaklings? They may hold Kavanaugh’s future in your their hands.

What's new with that............we have had weak Republicans in the past...........Obamacare ring a bell..........the Louisiana purchase ring a bell.......McCain in deep in pushing the Trump accusations...........

Collins is weak and has been weak..........they are in states that they must appease some Dems to stay in power.......and fold like cheap suits...........

Nothing new here at all............RINO ring a bell...........LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

see if it matches with what she described about the house, the stairwell going up,

Funny thing, houses usually have ‘stairwells’ that ‘go up’.
You are seriously, desperately nuts.

Wow...........stair wells go up...........

 

[eagle1462010]

The RINO's gave the Dems what they wanted...........another stall tactic and FBI investigation.........so they will continue to play the other accusation cards to muddy the water and try to prevent a Constitutionalist from getting to the court.........because they know it's a 5-4 ruling on key issues for them.............they hope to force it to next year.........and hope to take the Senate..........so they can force a moderate pick from Trump.

This whole thing.........the METOO movement........the timing of the leaks.........right at the last minute was a staged attack on the pick..........they would have done this to any selected............didn't matter who.............

Trump should have picked the woman ....it would have been very difficult for them to play the rape card against her.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[forkup]

Did you miss that we crossed the Rubicon in that regard a long time ago? Innocent until proven guilty didn't prevent you from going after Al Franken, neither did it stop you from going after Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and more then likely way more. I'm not going to say I find that bad or even out of bounds in a place like this. I'll even go as far that I probably have changed my position on this somewhere in the past for opportunistic reasons. I don't know when but I'd be surprised if I haven't. But can you please do me the favor of keeping your indignation of hanging an man on the PRESUMPTION of guilt to a minimum. I actually do appreciate talking to you and I don't want to be that guy that slaps you around with previous posts to much.
-We are ALL partisan here, to a more or less extent. That is a fact.
-The court of public opinion is often the only thing you have when assessing who you believe. that's not nefarious or necessarily wrong.
-A judicial nomination is NOT a judicial matter. Another fact.

*i* never went after franken. all i said was this is what you get when you let the mob rule.

You asserted that he should resign. You also asserted that Clinton took flights on "Lolita express" flights. Not for nothing pretty salacious. As I said I don't hold it against you but feeling the need to linking an article that all but accuses Clinton of being a pedophile or covering for one seems even a bit worse then what Kavanaugh is accused of. Presumption of innocence did not cross your mind there I dare to guess.

the liberals made the rules.

they should follow them. of that yes, i do feel that way.

Well if you agree that those are the rules then don't bemoan when they are followed. I also find it interesting that you both concede that you are partisan but now seem to want to blame the Democrats for you being that way? I think that rather a convenient excuse. Can you point to something particular the Democrats did that made you decide that anything goes?

when have the liberals followed their own rules when the repubs did it "in return"?

the biden rule. lame duck cant nominate. when done to obama "this is different". right did bullshit in return following a left rule.

nuclear option.

and now all this.

-First the Biden Rule. Biden made a speech 3 months later in the election year then when Scalia's seat was opened. There was NO opening at the time. Biden didn't suggest that no nominee could be nominated by the president. He simply stated to hold the name until after the election and move to confirm in the lame duck session. It wasn't a self serving speech. It was in fact a reaction to the Clarence Thomas nomination. It's simply an excuse that Mcconell used to justify holding the seat. In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year. In fact you will not find a SINGLE instance were Democrats held up a SCOTUS nomination for even half as long as the GOP did.
-The nuclear option was the other example. I actually think it was a bad precedent. On the other hand the GOP made it clear in no uncertain terms that if Obama wanted judges in the courts he would have to do it over their dead bodies.
- This thing is an entire different beast. Again Democrats did NOT make the accusation. Someone else did. Wether or not you believe her is one matter. But asserting that it is unfair seems again self serving.
- You know, I have been thinking about this and I have actually a pretty good idea.Pull Kavanaugh, Trump nominates Garland. Democrats if they win restore the filibuster for all judicial nominees and the balance will be restored.