Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Bookman 4764]

3 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Why should you believe an accuser who Lied about her fear of flying and preparing people for polygraphs tests?

Lol you're fake news.

[Buzzrock 15136]

I will guess that he's had 64 pleas not to antagonize Flake, Collins and Murkowski, and he'll bite his tongue for a few hours.

Will he put ketchup on it first?

[safe sex 12010]

Flying scares the fuck out of me, but I still flew across the country to go to a family member's wedding last month. Idiots. 

[atomheartbevo 90650]

10 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

I will guess that he's had 64 pleas not to antagonize Flake, Collins and Murkowski, and he'll bite his tongue for a few hours.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Lol you're fake news.

Really it's fake ? That's been established ?  

[Anastasis 23720]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

 

He's loving this.  His Rasmussen numbers just peaked at 50% in correlation to this mess (yes, I know, but doesn't matter cause NPD).  This only reinforces his behaviors and his belief that what he needs to do is tweet more. 

[pyrohornIII 4846]

8 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

People are strange re: “Let me recite this whole weird song down to the lyrics that O’Kavanaugh for sure sang when I was a nerd and he was a cool kid, but I mean, those aren’t the exact lyrics because remembering them 40 years later is weird, but that’s the gist of it!”

O’Kavanaugh seems like he sucks and not because he was a normal cool high school kid or because someone accused him of rape or assault which he likely didn’t do. I wish someone else would be nominated but this is who we have. RIP dignity and decorum!

I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh wasn't a cool kid.  He might have thought he was cool, and those douches he hung out with thought he was cool, but he comes across as a pretty insecure bully whose family had pretty deep pockets to keep paying for his partying.  After reading the statement of his father, I can understand why he grew up to be how he is. 

 

[Amobie 58]

15 minutes ago, GabrielsHorn said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there are actually witnesses that corroborate her testimony outside of her telling people years later, and the FBI did talk to the named people at the party?

I'm pretty sure that is correct.  There has been corroboration from the "witnesses" she provided. 

I also think her lawyers are crazy to let her talk to the FBI again.  She's already told an inconsistent story and having her testify more would only put her at risk. 

 

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1279]

 

How would they do that?

 

Agent: “Have you ever blacked out from drinking?”

 

Kav: “Have you?”

 

Agent: “My 5 seconds are up. Guess we’re done here.”

 

Seems likely.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

26 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Flying scares the fuck out of me, but I still flew across the country to go to a family member's wedding last month. Idiots. 

Username checks out.

[jimmyjazz 47209]

2 hours ago, MixtyMotions said:

Look, if there is, for example, somebody at Yale who says "I saw Kavanaugh put his penis in Debbie's face" we should have heard from them.  If they say "I heard somebody who heard somebody who ..." then we don't.

So the professor of Religious History at Princeton Theological Seminary who doxxed himself as being the previously anonymous person who heard about the penis waving incident at the time it happened doesn't count?  The one who is absolutely sure the two parties involved were Kavanaugh and Ramirez?  That's not credible evidence?

Try to deflect a little harder.

[Buzzrock 15136]

20 minutes ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

 

Agent: “Have you ever blacked out from drinking?”

 

Kav: “Have you?”

 

Agent: “My 5 seconds are up. Guess we’re done here.”

 

Seems likely.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just think it's unlikely he would change his bullshit story. It's not like they can torture him.

[MixtyMotions 102]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So the professor of Religious History at Princeton Theological Seminary who doxxed himself as being the previously anonymous person who heard about the penis waving incident at the time it happened doesn't count?  The one who is absolutely sure the two parties involved were Kavanaugh and Ramirez?  That's not credible evidence?

Try to deflect a little harder.

Correct.  He needs to supply the name of the person who told him about the penis waving incident.  Perhaps that person saw the penis.  Or perhaps they heard about it.  Heard about it doesn't fly.

Edited October 4, 2018 by MixtyMotions

[A Cellar Honker 19]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So the professor of Religious History at Princeton Theological Seminary who doxxed himself as being the previously anonymous person who heard about the penis waving incident at the time it happened doesn't count?  The one who is absolutely sure the two parties involved were Kavanaugh and Ramirez?  That's not credible evidence?

Try to deflect a little harder.

Why would a professor of religious history  be any more believable than a professor of mathematics or a professor of marketing?  Our politics have become so corrupt that I don’t believe either side in a he said/she said scenario.  I require proof.  Anecdotal evidence is not proof.

Conversely, I put zero credence in the former boyfriend’s letter too.

Edited October 4, 2018 by A Cellar Honker

[EMAWesome 101]

9 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

It's kind of hard to call the FBI's work an investigation if it's true they didn't talk to witnesses and principals in this story. What's a better word?

Whitehouse whitewash. Shamelessness rules!

It's not an investigation, it never was, and there is no way it ever could be.  They do not have investigative power over what would be a state case.  All this is is another background check on Kavanaugh.

[jimmyjazz 47209]

8 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

Correct.  He needs to supply the name of the person who told him about the penis waving incident.  Perhaps that person saw the penis.  Or perhaps they heard about it.  Heard about it doesn't fly.

Well, that's not true in a court of law, but you keep on fucking that football.  By the way, Appold also told another person in graduate school who has corroborated what Appold said ~ 1989.

[hayden_horn 11402]

so this extremely discouraging event in american politics is hastening to its pre-ordained end. this guy is going to be a supreme court justice.

and you know what? i don't think i'm all that destroyed over him personally being a SC justice. i reckon when he settles into his jurisprudence, and as the rest of the court reacts to him, things will be more or less settled, despite any victory laps the hardcore trump supporters want to take. we were always going to get a conservative justice during a republican term. it is what it is.

my main takeaway, however, is that the republic is functionally broken. and i think it is going to get worse, because the democrats are going to come away smarting like hell about this process, and rightfully so, imo. 

first we had the extreme partisan behavior in the merrick garland affair, which was honestly beyond the pale. mitch mcconnell will not be remembered fondly by history, imo. then gorsuch came and went and whatever. 

but this process...this is shameful. the politics played on #bothsides was bad, but the democrats really missed a chance to make some political hay. the hearing was a sham, and it was obvious that the democrats had no strategy to question this guy, and in fact lost complete control of their initiative when this guy outright fucking lied and they let it pass. 

further, the republicans sticking to their guns on this guy is just shameful - it would have been easy to pull his nomination and tap someone else. but mitch could not do that. he does not understand that his zero sum approach to this is killing our government. 

it's so cynical, and he'll be dead long before the full ramifications of his dreadful approach to politics are realized. in his reptile brain, i reckon he reasons that he is somehow delivering some just desserts for bork or something, but i don't think in his heart of hearts, assuming he's got one, he can feel good about anything he's doing.

there is going to be a very elastic snapback on the republicans, if not after the nearest midterm, after 2020, and they do not seem to give a shit. and when that elastic effect happens, i'll be here, decrying the democrats for overstepping their bounds while the hardcore conservatives on this board grind their teeth and decry partisan politics. because the democrats won't be able to help themselves, and while i will understand why in their reptile brain, they'll reckon that they are delivering some just desserts for kavanaugh or something, we the people will continue to get lost in the partisan bullshit.

the supreme court is supposed to be above this. it should be. but it's not. 

fuck.

@Brisketexan, pour me a scotch, i'm coming out on the ledge.

[EMAWesome 101]

9 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Fine, who on the left is calling for common ownership of the means of production and distribution?

Maxine Waters was wanting the government to take over the petroleum companies a couple of years ago.

[jimmyjazz 47209]

2 minutes ago, A Cellar Honker said:

Why would a professor of religious history  be any more believable than a professor of mathematics or a professor of marketing?  Our politics have become so corrupt that I don’t believe either side in a he said/she said scenario.  I require proof.  Anecdotal evidence is not proof.

I didn't suggest he was more believable than any other type of professor.  And, your standard of proof has jack shit to do with what others should require at this job interview.

[David Dennison 19542]

34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

He's loving this.  His Rasmussen numbers just peaked at 50% in correlation to this mess (yes, I know, but doesn't matter cause NPD).  This only reinforces his behaviors and his belief that what he needs to do is tweet more. 

His numbers are still garbage heading into a midterm.

[Prepuce of Doom 21286]

Jeff Flake may have his hands full these days. 

 

[seven 1368]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

It's not an investigation, it never was, and there is no way it ever could be.  They do not have investigative power over what would be a state case.  All this is is another background check on Kavanaugh.

A background investigation where they didn't even talk to the person that prompted it or talk to the subject of the background investigation about the new information/allegation. 

 

Lol

[Johnny Sack 8397]

45 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Flying scares the fuck out of me, but I still flew across the country to go to a family member's wedding last month. Idiots. 

Did you say you needed to delay the trip a week because you were afraid to fly, have them accommodate your delay request, and then fly anyway?

Did they offer to move the wedding to your location so you wouldn’t have to fly and then say you didn’t know about the offer?  Apparently the only American in the country without tv or internet and with lawyers that don’t mention such offers. 

[hayden_horn 11402]

and yeah, this sham of a background check is the cherry on top of a shit sundae. it's all so cynical.

it's a sham. it's all a sham.

it's too fucking bad.

[David Dennison 19542]

4 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Maxine Waters was wanting the government to take over the petroleum companies a couple of years ago.

All you can muster up is one congresswoman from an LA district calling for nationalization of one industry a few years ago (maybe)?

Yes, there is a loud cry for socialism on the left. You've convinced me.

Troll better.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

A sham?  A week ago dems, all of whom decided before the guy was even named they were voting no, said we needed a one week delay so the fbi could interview judge, Keyser and a couple others.  The fbi does this.  And because they don’t like the results they bitch.  

It’s a sham alright.  

[EMAWesome 101]

11 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I expect them both to be replaced by the next Democratic president. 

Ginsburg will be dead before the Democrats get back in the White House.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

A sham?  A week ago dems, all of whom decided before the guy was even named they were voting no, said we needed a one week delay so the fbi could interview judge, Keyser and a couple others.  The fbi does this.  And because they don’t like the results they bitch.  

It’s a sham alright.  

It doesn't matter what the Democrats do. You know that. Democrats are not the problem for this nominee.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, EMAWesome said:

Ginsburg will be dead before the Democrats get back in the White House.

Thomas will be dead before RBG.

[Jhawk 1075]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

so this extremely discouraging event in american politics is hastening to its pre-ordained end. this guy is going to be a supreme court justice.

and you know what? i don't think i'm all that destroyed over him personally being a SC justice. i reckon when he settles into his jurisprudence, and as the rest of the court reacts to him, things will be more or less settled, despite any victory laps the hardcore trump supporters want to take. we were always going to get a conservative justice during a republican term. it is what it is.

my main takeaway, however, is that the republic is functionally broken. and i think it is going to get worse, because the democrats are going to come away smarting like hell about this process, and rightfully so, imo. 

first we had the extreme partisan behavior in the merrick garland affair, which was honestly beyond the pale. mitch mcconnell will not be remembered fondly by history, imo. then gorsuch came and went and whatever. 

but this process...this is shameful. the politics played on #bothsides was bad, but the democrats really missed a chance to make some political hay. the hearing was a sham, and it was obvious that the democrats had no strategy to question this guy, and in fact lost complete control of their initiative when this guy outright fucking lied and they let it pass. 

further, the republicans sticking to their guns on this guy is just shameful - it would have been easy to pull his nomination and tap someone else. but mitch could not do that. he does not understand that his zero sum approach to this is killing our government. 

it's so cynical, and he'll be dead long before the full ramifications of his dreadful approach to politics are realized. in his reptile brain, i reckon he reasons that he is somehow delivering some just desserts for bork or something, but i don't think in his heart of hearts, assuming he's got one, he can feel good about anything he's doing.

there is going to be a very elastic snapback on the republicans, if not after the nearest midterm, after 2020, and they do not seem to give a shit. and when that elastic effect happens, i'll be here, decrying the democrats for overstepping their bounds while the hardcore conservatives on this board grind their teeth and decry partisan politics. because the democrats won't be able to help themselves, and while i will understand why in their reptile brain, they'll reckon that they are delivering some just desserts for kavanaugh or something, we the people will continue to get lost in the partisan bullshit.

the supreme court is supposed to be above this. it should be. but it's not. 

fuck.

@Brisketexan, pour me a scotch, i'm coming out on the ledge.

Welcome to the team. It has members both conservative and liberal. Do you think Harry Reid will look fondly upon? Because no one I know does. Politics is politics and nothing more. This was going to happen with any Nomination. And not because of who the nomination was. It was was going to happen because of the long game and the impending retirement/death of more justices on the SC. I know everyone believes that trump is going to lose in 2020 but he’s won once before and that means there is a chance of 6 more years. Is RGB going to hang on that long?  

Im actually sympathetic to your thoughts because that is exactly how I felt when dems had both chambers and the whitehouse. The results might have carried out over different issues but the rules were used to certain advantages and the ends justified the means first and foremost. In my opinion, for people who are capable of rational and reasoned thought across ideologies, hyper partisanship does not attract intellectual voters it turns them off. I never enter a negotiation saying “what is best for me” even when I have most of the leverage. Because I want everyone bought in on a path. Unfortunately that’s not how our politics works now. It turns people off and I don’t want to participate. So it will only get worse. 

[EMAWesome 101]

Which means he would be dead before the Democrats get back in the White House too.  I was only going with Trump nominating three SC justices if you think he will get to nominate four I'm not going to argue with you.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Jhawk said:

Welcome to the team. It has members both conservative and liberal. Do you think Harry Reid will look fondly upon? Because no one I know does. Politics is politics and nothing more. This was going to happen with any Nomination. And not because of who the nomination was. It was was going to happen because of the long game and the impending retirement/death of more justices on the SC. I know everyone believes that trump is going to lose in 2020 but he’s won once before and that means there is a chance of 6 more years. Is RGB going to hang on that long?  

Im actually sympathetic to your thoughts because that is exactly how I felt when dems had both chambers and the whitehouse. The results might have carried out over different issues but the rules were used to certain advantages and the ends justified the means first and foremost. In my opinion, for people who are capable of rational and reasoned thought across ideologies, hyper partisanship does not attract intellectual voters it turns them off. I never enter a negotiation saying “what is best for me” even when I have most of the leverage. Because I want everyone bought in on a path. Unfortunately that’s not how our politics works now. It turns people off and I don’t want to participate. So it will only get worse. 

Yep. It's been like this since 1789. The romanticized notion of cooperation and compromise is fantasy. Politics is brutal, but we've pumped up the public with the naive notion that our system of electoral governance should be about comity and friendship. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[wildcat09 29579]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Did you say you needed to delay the trip a week because you were afraid to fly, have them accommodate your delay request, and then fly anyway?

Did they offer to move the wedding to your location so you wouldn’t have to fly and then say you didn’t know about the offer?  Apparently the only American in the country without tv or internet and with lawyers that don’t mention such offers. 

Jesus, you are such a stupid asshole.

[A Cellar Honker 19]

3 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Welcome to the team. It has members both conservative and liberal. Do you think Harry Reid will look fondly upon? Because no one I know does. Politics is politics and nothing more. This was going to happen with any Nomination. And not because of who the nomination was. It was was going to happen because of the long game and the impending retirement/death of more justices on the SC. I know everyone believes that trump is going to lose in 2020 but he’s won once before and that means there is a chance of 6 more years. Is RGB going to hang on that long?  

Im actually sympathetic to your thoughts because that is exactly how I felt when dems had both chambers and the whitehouse. The results might have carried out over different issues but the rules were used to certain advantages and the ends justified the means first and foremost. In my opinion, for people who are capable of rational and reasoned thought across ideologies, hyper partisanship does not attract intellectual voters it turns them off. I never enter a negotiation saying “what is best for me” even when I have most of the leverage. Because I want everyone bought in on a path. Unfortunately that’s not how our politics works now. It turns people off and I don’t want to participate. So it will only get worse. 

Good post.  The fact that a non-elected judicial nominee is so important means that we’ve strayed far from the concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people.  Liberals and conservatives alike should be troubled by this.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

18 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Maxine Waters was wanting the government to take over the petroleum companies a couple of years ago.

She will have an ally in the intervention of the oil markets. 

[MixtyMotions 102]

If the Democrats goal was to defeat Kavanaugh instead of a generic Federalist nominee they could have easily done that.  They didn't.

I would bet the House that if Schumer had gone over the Trump/Federalist List of 25 or so nominees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates

and designated a bunch who could gain quick confirmation, then they could have had one of those nominees. That was never the game.  Any argument that this was about Kavanaugh is patently bogus.

 

 

[A Cellar Honker 19]

1 minute ago, Lagunamadre said:

She will have an ally in the intervention of the oil markets. 

It’s hard to believe that an oil cartel represents a market of any sort.

[hayden_horn 11402]

1 minute ago, MixtyMotions said:

If the Democrats goal was to defeat Kavanaugh instead of a generic Federalist nominee they could have easily done that.  They didn't.

I would bet the House that if Schumer had gone over the Trump/Federalist List of 25 or so nominees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates

and designated a bunch who could gain quick confirmation, then they could have had one of those nominees. That was never the game.  Any argument that this was about Kavanaugh is patently bogus.

 

 

it was far more about trump and mcconnell than it was about kavanaugh.

and winning.

above all, it was about winning.

[Chuckie Finster 23079]

3 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

If the Democrats goal was to defeat Kavanaugh instead of a generic Federalist nominee they could have easily done that.  They didn't.

 I would bet the House that if Schumer had gone over the Trump/Federalist List of 25 or so nominees

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates

and designated a bunch who could gain quick confirmation, then they could have had one of those nominees. That was never the game.  Any argument that this was about Kavanaugh is patently bogus.

  

 

You are out of your fucking mind if you think that Trump would have made any sort of deal with Schumer on this.  There's a more likely chance that Trump would have immediately eliminated all of Chuck's picks.  The fact that you think that Trump would even ask Schumer's opinion on this shows how out of touch you are with the man.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

If the Democrats goal was to defeat Kavanaugh instead of a generic Federalist nominee they could have easily done that.  They didn't.

I would bet the House that if Schumer had gone over the Trump/Federalist List of 25 or so nominees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates

and designated a bunch who could gain quick confirmation, then they could have had one of those nominees. That was never the game.  Any argument that this was about Kavanaugh is patently bogus.

And? It's still Republicans blocking the vote.

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

25 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

so this extremely discouraging event in american politics is hastening to its pre-ordained end. this guy is going to be a supreme court justice.

and you know what? i don't think i'm all that destroyed over him personally being a SC justice. i reckon when he settles into his jurisprudence, and as the rest of the court reacts to him, things will be more or less settled, despite any victory laps the hardcore trump supporters want to take. we were always going to get a conservative justice during a republican term. it is what it is.

my main takeaway, however, is that the republic is functionally broken. and i think it is going to get worse, because the democrats are going to come away smarting like hell about this process, and rightfully so, imo. 

first we had the extreme partisan behavior in the merrick garland affair, which was honestly beyond the pale. mitch mcconnell will not be remembered fondly by history, imo. then gorsuch came and went and whatever. 

but this process...this is shameful. the politics played on #bothsides was bad, but the democrats really missed a chance to make some political hay. the hearing was a sham, and it was obvious that the democrats had no strategy to question this guy, and in fact lost complete control of their initiative when this guy outright fucking lied and they let it pass. 

further, the republicans sticking to their guns on this guy is just shameful - it would have been easy to pull his nomination and tap someone else. but mitch could not do that. he does not understand that his zero sum approach to this is killing our government. 

it's so cynical, and he'll be dead long before the full ramifications of his dreadful approach to politics are realized. in his reptile brain, i reckon he reasons that he is somehow delivering some just desserts for bork or something, but i don't think in his heart of hearts, assuming he's got one, he can feel good about anything he's doing.

there is going to be a very elastic snapback on the republicans, if not after the nearest midterm, after 2020, and they do not seem to give a shit. and when that elastic effect happens, i'll be here, decrying the democrats for overstepping their bounds while the hardcore conservatives on this board grind their teeth and decry partisan politics. because the democrats won't be able to help themselves, and while i will understand why in their reptile brain, they'll reckon that they are delivering some just desserts for kavanaugh or something, we the people will continue to get lost in the partisan bullshit.

the supreme court is supposed to be above this. it should be. but it's not. 

fuck.

@Brisketexan, pour me a scotch, i'm coming out on the ledge.

To me he will always be Cryin' Brett Kavanaugh, a whiny little bitch. The petulant child Supreme Court appointee of a petulant child president. The video of his tantrum before the senate committee will last forever. It's going to get replayed over and over again. He should never be allowed to live that down. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by WhatTheBuck

[tantric superman 4668]

2 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

If the Democrats goal was to defeat Kavanaugh instead of a generic Federalist nominee they could have easily done that.  They didn't.

I would bet the House that if Schumer had gone over the Trump/Federalist List of 25 or so nominees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates

and designated a bunch who could gain quick confirmation, then they could have had one of those nominees. That was never the game.  Any argument that this was about Kavanaugh is patently bogus.

 

 

Yeah, amazing that the Dems haven't figured out that the Donald really just wants to work with them.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Jesus, you are such a stupid asshole.

That’s some impressive thoughts you put into that.  One of your better posts.  

[Jhawk 1075]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Yep. It's been like this since 1789. The romanticized notion of cooperation and compromise is fantasy. Politics is brutal, but we've pumped up the public with the naive notion that our system of electoral governance should be about comity and friendship. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Chris Matthews of all people said it right and he actually said it in a diatribe about Obama...

Quote

What bothered me about him [today] he keeps talking about common ground. Damn it, there's very little common ground between left and right, but what there is is compromise. You do something for me on minimum wage, I'll do something for you in corporate tax reform. You give me something on corporate tax reform and I'll get rid of some of the loopholes or I'll do something on trade for you. He never talks about trading and compromising, he always talks about common ground. Well, damn it, you can not run a government on common ground. 

He misses the main point of politics which is to be a politician and to trade. Okay, you want this? You want to take care of people who have been here illegally for 20, 30 years? Here's what I want. No more illegal hiring, and that's all in the Senate bill. But he won't sell the compromise. There's something in this guy that just plays to his constituency and acts like there is no other room out there. And that's going to be a collision at the end of this year like you have never seen. I do believe it will be like waving a red flag in front of the bull. I think Mitch McConnell is headed for a fight with the president.

I hate Matthews but he is 100% right and it is 100% not limited to obama.  It is absolutely everyone in government right now and that is what will end our democracy.  Not one side or the other getting what they want, even though I completely disagree with 80% of the dem platform.  There has to be give and take and I have zero clue how to achieve that other than giving 90% of the power back to the states so the federal government is so limited it cannot represent anyone except for defensive measures and infrastructure.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

To me he will always be Cryin' Brett Kavanaugh, a whiny little bitch. The petulant child Supreme Court appointment of a petulant child president. The video of his tantrum before the senate committee will last forever. It's going to get replayed over and over again. He should never be allowed to live that down. 

He's also going to get dragged before Senate and House Judicial Committees when they are in the hands of Democrats.

This isn't going away.

[TexArcher 39072]

1 minute ago, A Cellar Honker said:

Good post.  The fact that a non-elected judicial nominee is so important means that we’ve strayed far from the concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people.  Liberals and conservatives alike should be troubled by this.

Well, yeah.  Of course we don't get to vote for Supreme Court Justices, Chairman of the Fed, etc.

All we really get to do is choose between two telegenic people whose actions are then controlled by their party and their party's special interests.

We're basically an oligarchy, but with ruling corporations instead of ruling families.  See: Super PAC.

As Mark Twain allegedly said, "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Jhawk said:

Chris Matthews of all people said it right and he actually said it in a diatribe about Obama...

I hate Matthews but he is 100% right and it is 100% not limited to obama.  It is absolutely everyone in government right now and that is what will end our democracy.  Not one side or the other getting what they want, even though I completely disagree with 80% of the dem platform.  There has to be give and take and I have zero clue how to achieve that other than giving 90% of the power back to the states so the federal government is so limited it cannot represent anyone except for defensive measures and infrastructure.

His notion of how politics works is not based in reality. It's how he wishes it worked. 

We would be better off with a system that did not allow for divided government. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Brett Kavanaugh thought he would be on the Supreme Court today.

He is not.

[Chuckie Finster 23079]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Brett Kavanaugh thought he would be on the Supreme Court today.

He is not.

Poor guy has to wait until this weekend instead.  Rough.

[EMAWesome 101]

12 hours ago, Your Mom said:

A background check is not the same as an investigation into a specific allegation.  It's not even in the same ballpark.  You know this of course, but you are throwing shit against the wall anyway because you have the mind of a 6 year old.   

How many times today am I going to have to post this?  This is not an investigation.  There is no crime in the FBI's jurisdiction to investigate.  They are not the secret police.  They can't just round up people and interrogate them whenever they feel like it.  All they can do is another background check on Kavanaugh. And there is no reason to talk to Kavanaugh or Ford because the FBI already has access to their sworn testimony under oath in the Senate hearings.  The people they will talk to are people that have not testified in front of the Senate Judicial  Committee but, unlike the Senate, they do not subpoena power in this formality.   Hugo's hard working, ass busting media have been mistakingly calling this an investigation to give everyone the wrong impression.