They're addmitting it's true, they just don't care it's true and he lied

[Godboy]

This is typical of most on the right: ignore the lies and dishonesty

Yep, and we typically also make fun of your stupid lies and dishonesty.

 

[theHawk]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.

Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?

I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?

And this is an example of the ignorance and acceptance of sexual assault that results in women refraining reporting being attacked.

How long ago a sexual assault occurred and whether it was reported to the authorities or not in no manner mitigates or undermines the legitimacy and severity of the attack, and it does not absolve the attacker of being responsible for the attack, or suffering the consequences of his actions.

So we should convict a man with no evidence and no actual police investigation or even a report by the “victim”.

Kavanaugh is the victim here.

I'm not sure anyone's convicting him. They want to investigate further.

Bullshit. The left want him to be withdrawn on charges that cannot be proven.

 

[gipper]

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
I have precedent of Scotus nominees confirmed doing election years, no less then 14 times, what do you base your assertion on? As to definitions, I used Webster's dictionary what did you use for your definition?

Again you refuse to answer. The Ds would have done the same.

 

[gipper]

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

 

[forkup]

you can come decades later and say it, but there are statutes of limitation that prevents anything legal, coming from it, even if true....and expect to be bashed and lied about and gone over like a fine tooth comb, if you do, and maybe lose your own job and career.

Thats true. But shouldn't the time span between the act and the public complaint bear some weight in the discussion? Don't you find it a bit strange that this comes up only when he is mentioned as a nominee to the US Supreme Court?

Kavanaugh has lied about his handling of stolen Democratic documents, in his past hearing for the Appellate court... which came to light in this hearing with document releases.... he's opined the President should be King... and other things that I totally disagree with him and oppose him for those reason... no one needed this woman to come forward.

Noted.

But immaterial to this thread.

What you have missed is that most women that have been abused or sexually assaulted when they were 15 years old or any age, DO NOT COME FORWARD, for decades... women and girls are taught or were self taught, to man up, and keep their mouths shut, if they want to make it, in this man's world....

The me too movement shows that it takes decades for people who have been abused or sexually harrassed, to stand up and fight for themselves...

The Me too movement also shows that a lot of women are happy to jump in the sack with powerful men as long as there is something in it for them. The latest tape to surface of that pig Weinstein and Melissa Thompson (I think that was her name) shows her flirting with him and letting his advances continue. Her pleading victim, to me, is laughable.



Sadly, I think is what has happened in many of these cases. All's great between the parties until these guys move on to the next pair of legs. Then the forgotten women play the victim card.

Is/was there abuse? Sure. I'm glad these men are suffering whatever pain and indignity they suffer. But really, if you're going to bring up "me too" where women were keeping their mouth shut to make it in a man's world that's great. I agree. But what influence did Kav exercise that would have kept this woman silent? Harvey Weinstein could make it to where you don't get jobs. Matt Lauer could reduce you to a nobody at NBC. Larry Nasser (sp?) could tell the coach that you're not up to practicing in his medical opinion. Kav? What was he going to do--especially as a high school student?

same with kids abused by pedophile priests...

I see what you're saying and the point you're trying to make. Powerful _________ takes advantage of weak ________. But those are kids you're talking about here vs. respected men of the cloth. Not the case in Hollywood or Kav.

I'm just answering one part of this post, which was well thought out, coherent and hyperbole free. Something that is both rare and refreshing on USMB and as such should be mentioned and applauded.

But what influence did Kav exercise that would have kept this woman silent?

I want to interject that maybe the motive is not so much influence as it could be simply a sense of belated justice.Think of it from the alleged victims side ( I say alleged because I don't know, neither do I suspect to know the truth of the matter). If I would be the victim of sexual assault and decades later the perpetrator of that assault would be up for a place on the supreme court. Would a sense of injustice not be sufficient motive to speak out? Knowing full well the consequences of coming out now?

 

[forkup]

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

 

[forkup]

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
I have precedent of Scotus nominees confirmed doing election years, no less then 14 times, what do you base your assertion on? As to definitions, I used Webster's dictionary what did you use for your definition?

Again you refuse to answer. The Ds would have done the same.

No I don't refuse to answer, I refuse to answer a hypothetical situation without having a clear idea how they would react. The way I see it, Democrats are notoriously bad at playing hardball. On the other hand by acting the way the Republicans did during Garland nomination and the limited to no damage they have received by acting that way, they have effectively said to the Democrats, "take the gloves of because we did and the electorate doesn't care". If you see the pundits on the left, people like Bill Maher, Scarborough and more. You will notice that bringing up these accusations, the way they did and the time they did, you will hear criticism on their own side, hell even I don't necessarily think Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated. It's a political weakness on the left the right doesn't have. Republicans in general don't really let things as ethics get in the way of getting power. We forced Al Franken to resign. You guys supported Roy Moore despite credible accusations of statutory rape of minors. So NO I don't know Democrats would react the same. Precedent doesn't give me enough to go on to get to an informed opinion.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

 

[gipper]

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is a last-minute desperate effort by the left to keep the court from becoming conservative. They always trot out the fragile woman card from 30 years ago when all else fails. How many times have we seen this now?

Blue dress.

 

[gipper]

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
I have precedent of Scotus nominees confirmed doing election years, no less then 14 times, what do you base your assertion on? As to definitions, I used Webster's dictionary what did you use for your definition?

Again you refuse to answer. The Ds would have done the same.

No I don't refuse to answer, I refuse to answer a hypothetical situation without having a clear idea how they would react. The way I see it, Democrats are notoriously bad at playing hardball. On the other hand by acting the way the Republicans did during Garland nomination and the limited to no damage they have received by acting that way, they have effectively said to the Democrats, "take the gloves of because we did and the electorate doesn't care". If you see the pundits on the left, people like Bill Maher, Scarborough and more. You will notice that bringing up these accusations, the way they did and the time they did, you will hear criticism on their own side, hell even me don't necessarily think Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated. It's a political weakness on the left the right doesn't have. Republicans in general don't really let things as ethics get in the way of getting power. We forced Al Franken to resign. You guys supported Roy Moore despite credible accusations of statutory rape of minors. So NO I don't know Democrats would react the same. Precedent doesn't give me enough to go on to get to an informed opinion.

The Ds destroyed Judge Bork That was a long time ago. They also did their best to destroy Thomas a long time ago. Name one justice the Rs treated similarly.

 

[forkup]

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

The constitution clearly states, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
How does NOT meeting with the nominee fit that definition?

 

[gipper]

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

The constitution clearly states, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
How does NOT meeting with the nominee fit that definition?

Doesn’t matter. BO didn’t fight for it. The DNCMSM didn’t fight it The D party didn’t fight for it.

 

[gipper]

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

The constitution clearly states, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
How does NOT meeting with the nominee fit that definition?

Name one justice the Rs treated like the Ds treated Bork and Thomas.

 

[forkup]

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
I have precedent of Scotus nominees confirmed doing election years, no less then 14 times, what do you base your assertion on? As to definitions, I used Webster's dictionary what did you use for your definition?

Again you refuse to answer. The Ds would have done the same.

No I don't refuse to answer, I refuse to answer a hypothetical situation without having a clear idea how they would react. The way I see it, Democrats are notoriously bad at playing hardball. On the other hand by acting the way the Republicans did during Garland nomination and the limited to no damage they have received by acting that way, they have effectively said to the Democrats, "take the gloves of because we did and the electorate doesn't care". If you see the pundits on the left, people like Bill Maher, Scarborough and more. You will notice that bringing up these accusations, the way they did and the time they did, you will hear criticism on their own side, hell even me don't necessarily think Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated. It's a political weakness on the left the right doesn't have. Republicans in general don't really let things as ethics get in the way of getting power. We forced Al Franken to resign. You guys supported Roy Moore despite credible accusations of statutory rape of minors. So NO I don't know Democrats would react the same. Precedent doesn't give me enough to go on to get to an informed opinion.

The Ds destroyed Judge Bork That was a long time ago. They also did their best to destroy Thomas a long time ago. Name one justice the Rs treated similarly.

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, are you being deliberately obtuse here? As to Bork
Washington Talk: The Bork Hearings; For Biden: Epoch of Belief, Epoch of Incredulity
When confronted with a request to subpoena Judge Bork’s video rental records in a search for possible pornography, Mr. Biden refused. (The records, which revealed that Judge Bork’s only weakness was for Cary Grant, were leaked anyway to The Washington City Paper.) At this same time, Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign collapsed in the face of plagiarism charges, but he won bipartisan praise for conducting the Bork hearings with fairness and restraint.
Bork was rejected, but they had a hearing, a hearing that was deemed by BOTH sides to be conducted fairly. There was ZERO presumption from Democrats that Bork shouldn't get a hearing.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It seems to be a different standard. As I said, last time a Democrat nominated a Scotus nominee, congress simply said."we won't meet with this guy." Ginsburg was nominated in a time when congress looked at qualifications before party when electing a judge to the supreme court. Now we live in a time when politics has become a zero sum game. I rather have it wasn't so. I'd rather have Kavanaugh being judged on his merit. Even if this would swing the courts to the right. Even though I consider that swing gotten by the Republicans cheating on the previous pick. The thing is though that that would be naive. To many people now believe that politics as a zero sum game now is preferable to the art of compromise and Republican especially, realize that considering current demographics, playing the game fair would result in them losing all power. One does not keep the majority fairly if your party only represents 27 percent of the populace.1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

They never have. No one ever has. Only the modern, cunty righties would do such a dastardly thing.

 

[gipper]

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
I have precedent of Scotus nominees confirmed doing election years, no less then 14 times, what do you base your assertion on? As to definitions, I used Webster's dictionary what did you use for your definition?

Again you refuse to answer. The Ds would have done the same.

No I don't refuse to answer, I refuse to answer a hypothetical situation without having a clear idea how they would react. The way I see it, Democrats are notoriously bad at playing hardball. On the other hand by acting the way the Republicans did during Garland nomination and the limited to no damage they have received by acting that way, they have effectively said to the Democrats, "take the gloves of because we did and the electorate doesn't care". If you see the pundits on the left, people like Bill Maher, Scarborough and more. You will notice that bringing up these accusations, the way they did and the time they did, you will hear criticism on their own side, hell even me don't necessarily think Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated. It's a political weakness on the left the right doesn't have. Republicans in general don't really let things as ethics get in the way of getting power. We forced Al Franken to resign. You guys supported Roy Moore despite credible accusations of statutory rape of minors. So NO I don't know Democrats would react the same. Precedent doesn't give me enough to go on to get to an informed opinion.

The Ds destroyed Judge Bork That was a long time ago. They also did their best to destroy Thomas a long time ago. Name one justice the Rs treated similarly.

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, are you being deliberately obtuse here? As to Bork
Washington Talk: The Bork Hearings; For Biden: Epoch of Belief, Epoch of Incredulity
When confronted with a request to subpoena Judge Bork’s video rental records in a search for possible pornography, Mr. Biden refused. (The records, which revealed that Judge Bork’s only weakness was for Cary Grant, were leaked anyway to The Washington City Paper.) At this same time, Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign collapsed in the face of plagiarism charges, but he won bipartisan praise for conducting the Bork hearings with fairness and restraint.
Bork was rejected, but they had a hearing, a hearing that was deemed by BOTH sides to be conducted fairly. There was ZERO presumption from Democrats that Bork shouldn't get a hearing.

So you think Garland was treated like Bork was. Is that right?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

Besides...elections have consequences as Obama, the DNCMSM, and lefties loved to say.

Had BO not been such an asshole, he might not have lost the senate to the Rs.

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

The Republican precedent dictates that we must now wait until after the election then.
After the American people have spoken and after the Senate is solidly blue.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
I have precedent of Scotus nominees confirmed doing election years, no less then 14 times, what do you base your assertion on? As to definitions, I used Webster's dictionary what did you use for your definition?

Again you refuse to answer. The Ds would have done the same.

No I don't refuse to answer, I refuse to answer a hypothetical situation without having a clear idea how they would react. The way I see it, Democrats are notoriously bad at playing hardball. On the other hand by acting the way the Republicans did during Garland nomination and the limited to no damage they have received by acting that way, they have effectively said to the Democrats, "take the gloves of because we did and the electorate doesn't care". If you see the pundits on the left, people like Bill Maher, Scarborough and more. You will notice that bringing up these accusations, the way they did and the time they did, you will hear criticism on their own side, hell even me don't necessarily think Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated. It's a political weakness on the left the right doesn't have. Republicans in general don't really let things as ethics get in the way of getting power. We forced Al Franken to resign. You guys supported Roy Moore despite credible accusations of statutory rape of minors. So NO I don't know Democrats would react the same. Precedent doesn't give me enough to go on to get to an informed opinion.

The Ds destroyed Judge Bork That was a long time ago. They also did their best to destroy Thomas a long time ago. Name one justice the Rs treated similarly.

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, are you being deliberately obtuse here? As to Bork
Washington Talk: The Bork Hearings; For Biden: Epoch of Belief, Epoch of Incredulity
When confronted with a request to subpoena Judge Bork’s video rental records in a search for possible pornography, Mr. Biden refused. (The records, which revealed that Judge Bork’s only weakness was for Cary Grant, were leaked anyway to The Washington City Paper.) At this same time, Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign collapsed in the face of plagiarism charges, but he won bipartisan praise for conducting the Bork hearings with fairness and restraint.
Bork was rejected, but they had a hearing, a hearing that was deemed by BOTH sides to be conducted fairly. There was ZERO presumption from Democrats that Bork shouldn't get a hearing.

So you think Garland was treated like Bork was. Is that right?

No one in history was treated like Garland, dope.

 

[forkup]

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

The constitution clearly states, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
How does NOT meeting with the nominee fit that definition?

Doesn’t matter. BO didn’t fight for it. The DNCMSM didn’t fight it The D party didn’t fight for it.

What fight do you suggest they could have pulled of? I also notice you changed your argument from "The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees." To, "well congress could pull it of so BO should have just fought harder, so fuck the consequences of elections or the constitution"