It should.
Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue? | |||
Yes | 53 | 47.32% | |
No | 41 | 36.61% | |
Trump should pick a new canidate | 18 | 16.07% | |
Total: | 112 |
Clearly it does not take much to become a Judge, this was beyond pathetic that he was approved. He lied under oath, he yelled, lost his temper, lost his cool, cried over semantics, he blamed democrats for whatever, It's really baffling how the senate just does not care as long as they get a judge selected that's as bent over as him, Brett showed clear as day light that he is not fit for the job.
And I didnt even talk about the rape allegation, congrats 'murica. You are stuck with a piece of shit. For life.
Wow as this discussion drags on more and more people show themselves to be just complete garbage. Reveling in other peoples pain. Cheating to win. Disgusting.
This thread needs to be locked.
Last edited by dharh - on 07 October 2018Snoopy said:
Yes, but it has never been this bad in my experience. Usually, when a politician gets into trouble there is some kind of evidence. Now you don't even need evidence. As long as you go for the "muh feelings" you can hurt anyone. |
I see it the same. Its not like the GOP and President Trump tried to find a candidate that both parties would like, instead they went for someone who was totally partisan knowing this would be resisted by the democrats but with their majority felt they could still squeeze him through. There is no difference here because when Garland was picked by Obama, he was mostly conservative but he was still rejected because Obama picked him. In other words, he could have been completely conservative and they would have still rejected him because Obama picked him. At the end of the day, its still partisan politics.
The only thing I see is still partisan politics. People who support Kavanaugh in this thread did not make a fuss when Garland was left on the altar even though he probably would have made a pretty good justice. The blindfold both sides put on when it's there time just makes me laugh.
So now people are trying to act like the Dems are doing anything different from the Republicans but in actuality they are all playing the same game with the same goals, power.
NightlyPoe said:
-One of them can be 100% dismissed. She claims that Kavanaugh was a part of a group of serial gang rapists. That, as a college student, she attended at least a dozen of these high school parties. That at one of them she was raped. And then that she then returned afterwards. This is an easy case of perjury for the accuser and disbarment for the lawyer for giving damaging legal advice to his client for his own publicity purposes. -The other about Kavanaugh exposing himself is significantly less fantastic, but not really worth pursuing. The NYT pointed out that the accuser was literally calling around saying she wasn't sure if it was Kavanaugh just the previous week, not to mention she was so plastered she couldn't tell the difference between a penis and a sex toy. While it wouldn't be a shocker if someone whipped it out during a drunken college party (there's a reason why I was a homebody in my youth), the accuser's fuzzy memory coming into focus after a week of talking to her lawyer disqualifies her as a witness. Even if she believes it 100% now, the reconstruction of memory needed to get to there cannot be trusted. -Kavanaugh's roommate didn't add anything meaningful to the discussion. He gave us a few embarrassing details to what has already been admitted. |
Actually Kavanaugh roommate is the only one I would take from any of this but the issue is that he disputes sworn testimony from Kavanaugh which is the issue. In Kavanaugh urge to make himself appear like some choir boy, he was nothing of the sort at Yale. Personally I really would like a justice to be as truthful as possible but it seems in this day and age, those things are not really important anymore.
Machiavellian said: Actually Kavanaugh roommate is the only one I would take from any of this but the issue is that he disputes sworn testimony from Kavanaugh which is the issue. In Kavanaugh urge to make himself appear like some choir boy, he was nothing of the sort at Yale. Personally I really would like a justice to be as truthful as possible but it seems in this day and age, those things are not really important anymore. |
In this day and age if the repubs commits perjury it's A O K. They want you to believe Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, and Boofing = farting. lmao
Sordel said:
You know you are giving every new justice a large salary and lifetime tenure? Typical of a Democrat sympathiser to come up with a magic formula that involves increasing the cost of the bench at every change of administration! |
Yeah, go ahead and complain about a single person's salary while the GOP wipes their ass with the debt and deficit at every opportunity, providing they can enrich themselves and their "donors" by doing so.
NightlyPoe said:
Both of those definitions have been confirmed by classmates. |
and both of those classmates definitions are wrong. unless it's possible that Brett Kavanaugh is in the minority of people who define "boof" as flatulance.
Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 07 October 2018Nighthawk117 said:
The best thing about RBG, is that she is the next SCOTUS justice to bite the dust. Bye, Bye, RBG, glad we hardly knew ye.... Bring on the next nominee... |
I wouldn't necessarily celebrate her death like that, that's wrong to do. Unless you're talking about biting the dust as in shes the next open seat that there will be.
Yes she will be the next seat that is open and will more than likely happen within Trump's presidency should he get a second term.
NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick
a
poklane said:
Yeah, go ahead and complain about a single person's salary while the GOP wipes their ass with the debt and deficit at every opportunity, providing they can enrich themselves and their "donors" by doing so. |
I'm not impressed by your mathematics. To overturn a Republican bias on the supreme court you'd have to add two justices, then ex hypothesi the Republicans would add another two and you were suggesting that the Democrats would add another two. Or you could save the money and do away with the independence of the judicial branch completely.