More SCOTUS news.

[jomar]

Neither are you, you're the one trying to justify an accusation 30 years later and just at the time of Kavanagh's confirmation hearing for the higher court.

I'm not justifying anything.

Why not when he was confirmed for the lower court.

Fair question.

It was a democrat stunt and a despicable one at that!

Maybe. Dems finally took a page from the repub playbook, though.

 

[icanhelp1]

I'm not justifying anything.



Fair question.



Maybe. Dems finally took a page from the repub playbook, though.

The playbook was written by Ted Kennedy, a despicable individual in his own right, then that very book was amended by Joe Biden himself. People forget that sleepy Joe himself blocked confirmation of the first black woman nominee to the high court. Most probably don't realize how Biden sold his soul to save the filibuster rule. Dems are hypocrites.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The playbook was written by Ted Kennedy, a despicable individual in his own right, then that very book was amended by Joe Biden himself. People forget that sleepy Joe himself blocked confirmation of the first black woman nominee to the high court. Most probably don't realize how Biden sold his soul to save the filibuster rule. Dems are hypocrites.

We don't forget that he blocked the first, we simply know that the only reason people are bringing it up is to imply Brown isn't qualified or something. There is no hypocracy there without someone actually digging up the circumstances.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The playbook was written by Ted Kennedy, a despicable individual in his own right, then that very book was amended by Joe Biden himself. People forget that sleepy Joe himself blocked confirmation of the first black woman nominee to the high court. Most probably don't realize how Biden sold his soul to save the filibuster rule. Dems are hypocrites.

So are Republicans, so stfu with your partisan replies.....either acknowledge all the hypocrisy or quit trying to only point out one side ( the side you disagree with as I see it).

 

[pecksniff]

Neither are you, you're the one trying to justify an accusation 30 years later and just at the time of Kavanagh's confirmation hearing for the higher court.

It was a relevant matter -- there is no need to otherwise justify it.

 

[pecksniff]

The playbook was written by Ted Kennedy, a despicable individual in his own right

And a better man than you.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

And a better man than you.

Can you say Chappaquiddick, I think you can. Though that would still make him better than Ican't

 

[icanhelp1]

We don't forget that he blocked the first, we simply know that the only reason people are bringing it up is to imply Brown isn't qualified or something. There is no hypocracy there without someone actually digging up the circumstances.

The hypocrisy is first the dems want to save the filibuster rule because its to the dems advantage in order to filibuster high court nominees and now the dems want to shitcan the filibuster rule so you can pack the courts and codify ROE vs Wade, that's hypocrisy.

 

[icanhelp1]

So are Republicans, so stfu with your partisan replies.....either acknowledge all the hypocrisy or quit trying to only point out one side ( the side you disagree with as I see it

OR WHAT??

 

[pecksniff]

The hypocrisy is first the dems want to save the filibuster rule because its to the dems advantage in order to filibuster high court nominees and now the dems want to shitcan the filibuster rule so you can pack the courts and codify ROE vs Wade, that's hypocrisy.

I have always consistently favored abolishing the filibuster, regardless of which party controlled the Senate at the time. There is no defense for it, no way in which it is conceivably useful. There has never been any occasion in American history at which we can look back and say, "That bill/nomination was blocked by filibuster! We sure dodged a bullet there!"

But, then, I have always consistently favored abolishing the Senate itself, for the exact same reason. There has never been any occasion at which we can look back and say, "That crazy bill was passed by the House but died in the Senate! We sure dodged a bullet there!" Quite the reverse, in fact, in countless instances. The Senate, as a check on the "passions" of the House, does much harm and no good.

 

[icanhelp1]

It was a relevant matter -- there is no need to otherwise justify it.

And a better man than you.

You're irrelevant! You know I'm right.

 

[icanhelp1]

Can you say Chappaquiddick, I think you can. Though that would still make him better than Ican't

More hyperbole from FUZZYNUTS. Your ad-hom is noted, useless but noted. By the way he was my senator, the whole family was either corrupt, above the law or broke the ultimate sacred trust, that trust being to their spouses. Both John and Robert were Bill Clinton on steroids.

 

[pecksniff]

You're irrelevant! You know I'm right.

You know that the only despicable person in that hearing room was Kavanaugh.

 

[icanhelp1]

I have always consistently favored abolishing the filibuster, regardless of which party controlled the Senate at the time. There is no defense for it, no way in which it is conceivably useful. There has never been any occasion in American history at which we can look back and say, "That bill/nomination was blocked by filibuster! We sure dodged a bullet there!"

But, then, I have always consistently favored abolishing the Senate itself, for the exact same reason. There has never been any occasion at which we can look back and say, "That crazy bill was passed by the House but died in the Senate! We sure dodged a bullet there!" Quite the reverse, in fact, in countless instances. The Senate, as a check on the "passions" of the House, does much harm and no good.

It's not about you! Dems want it when it benefits them and then shitcan it when it doesn't.

 

[icanhelp1]

You know that the only despicable person in that hearing room was Kavanaugh.

I got it!

 

[pecksniff]

It's not about you! Dems want it when it benefits them and then shitcan it when it doesn't.

In the same way that neither party has any consistent ideological position on the proper allocation of powers and functions between the legislative and executive branches -- rather, each party always demands more power for whichever branch it controls at the moment. But that is not exactly "hypocrisy," it is simply ordinary power politics.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

OR WHAT??

Or nothing, it just proves your a partisan dipshit is all, and I think everyone here already knows that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

More hyperbole from FUZZYNUTS. Your ad-hom is noted, useless but noted. By the way he was my senator, the whole family was either corrupt, above the law or broke the ultimate sacred trust, that trust being to their spouses. Both John and Robert were Bill Clinton on steroids.

Do you see me disagreeing? Still they are better than you could ever hope to be.....*chuckles*

 

[icanhelp1]

In the same way that neither party has any consistent ideological position on the proper allocation of powers and functions between the legislative and executive branches -- rather, each party always demands more power for whichever branch it controls at the moment. But that is not exactly "hypocrisy," it is simply ordinary power politics.

Really??? So Pelosi, Schumer, Obama and a multitude of other democrats are demonstrably in favor of border security and a WALL, then Trump is elected and all of a sudden these same hypocrites are against a border wall.

Dems didn't want Kavanagh, were willing to engage in character assassination to avenge Garland. That's way above the normal adversarial banter between parties. It's unethical, immoral and unprofessional behavior for the esteemed Senate judiciary. The republicans never stooped to that low level behavior. Please don't give me the Jackson bullshit. She was asked legitimate questions and never was she attacked personally. I believe any questions on future rulings directed at nominees should be stopped.

 

[ll74]

Really??? So Pelosi, Schumer, Obama and a multitude of other democrats are demonstrably in favor of border security and a WALL, then Trump is elected and all of a sudden these same hypocrites are against a border wall.

Dems didn't want Kavanagh, were willing to engage in character assassination to avenge Garland. That's way above the normal adversarial banter between parties. It's unethical, immoral and unprofessional behavior for the esteemed Senate judiciary. The republicans never stooped to that low level behavior. Please don't give me the Jackson bullshit. She was asked legitimate questions and never was she attacked personally. I believe any questions on future rulings directed at nominees should be stopped.

In case you missed it because of the "open border" bullshit - https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/creating-a-21st-century-immigration-system/

 

[jomar]

The hypocrisy is first the dems want to save the filibuster rule because its to the dems advantage in order to filibuster high court nominees and now the dems want to shitcan the filibuster rule so you can pack the courts and codify ROE vs Wade, that's hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mitch McConnell

 

[icanhelp1]

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mitch McConnell

I totally agree!

 

[Sean Renaud]

Really??? So Pelosi, Schumer, Obama and a multitude of other democrats are demonstrably in favor of border security and a WALL, then Trump is elected and all of a sudden these same hypocrites are against a border wall.

Dems didn't want Kavanagh, were willing to engage in character assassination to avenge Garland. That's way above the normal adversarial banter between parties. It's unethical, immoral and unprofessional behavior for the esteemed Senate judiciary. The republicans never stooped to that low level behavior. Please don't give me the Jackson bullshit. She was asked legitimate questions and never was she attacked personally. I believe any questions on future rulings directed at nominees should be stopped.

The border wall is a stupid racist idea. If you were ever for it you need to check yourself. Maybe you learned better, maybe you were just playing to the audience. We have very real problems in this nation.

Kavanaugh probably did what he was accused of. It would be unethical yadda yadda not to bring that up.

While 'what is a woman' was bullshit question the rest was fine.

Nominees are for life, they should absolutely be asked what their opinions are on things.

 

[ll74]

Can't wait til McConnell does away with the filibuster and blames the Democrats

 

[pecksniff]

I believe any questions on future rulings directed at nominees should be stopped.

That will never happen.