The reason why the Republicans want Kavanaugh is because Kavanaugh is a Republican. To quote Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society that consulted Trump: "You can throw a dart at that list of possible candidates and anyone would be fine".

Agreed. Even a living for Republican Supreme Court Justice said he believed Kavanaugh's performance during the hearings showed that he wasn't fit for the court -- despite the fact that the same judge was a fan of Kav's voting record. You don't have to be on the left ideologicially to see that Kavanaugh is not an ethical and unbiased jurist. 

Brett Kavanaugh was adamant as he sat in the witness chair at his 2006 confirmation hearing to be an appeals court judge. Kavanaugh was being questioned by Democrats about his knowledge of President George W. Bush's torture policy and treatment of detainees while he served as associate White House counsel.

He responded that he was "not involved" in "questions about the rules governing detention of combatants."

Senate Democrats have never fully accepted Kavanaugh's answers to questions about one of the Bush administration's most controversial policies, and now they are prepared to resurrect the issue as Kavanaugh faces a hearing as President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., whose questions in 2006 elicited Kavanaugh's denial, said in an interview this week that "what he told us under oath is not accurate."

Democrats are demanding Bush White House files to pin down specifics of any Kavanaugh involvement in detainee policy discussions, which could slow down the Trump administration's hope to have Kavanaugh confirmed before the Supreme Court reconvenes on Oct. 1.

Kavanaugh was involved in at least one contentious meeting at the White House Counsel's Office in 2002, and two former White House officials detailed his role in interviews this week with The Washington Post. Bush was then developing his policy on detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, and Kavanaugh was asked to interpret an important question about how the detainee policy was likely to be viewed in a Supreme Court challenge, specifically by Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had served as a clerk.

Kavanaugh weighed in on how he thought Kennedy would vote on whether certain detainees should be denied a chance to be heard and have legal counsel, according to the other participants.

Kavanaugh had already been confirmed for the circuit court when the White House meeting became public in a Post report. Democrats including Durbin have sought ever since to question Kavanaugh about whether he misled the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh declined an interview request. White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement that "Judge Kavanaugh's testimony accurately reflected the facts."

The two former White House officials who were in the meeting with Kavanaugh said they don't think Kavanaugh was in the loop on Bush's overall torture policy. One of those officials, former Deputy White House Counsel Tim Flanigan, said that the policy was tightly "compartmentalized" and that Kavanaugh was not authorized to know about it. The second official agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity and confirmed Flanigan's recollection.

Still, Durbin said that there is a conflict between Kavanaugh's testimony that he was not involved in rules governing detainees and his participation in a meeting about whether detainees should be given legal counsel. "It is a critical element in detention and interrogation as to whether a person is represented by counsel," Durbin said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, echoed Durbin's concern, saying in a statement to The Post that Kavanaugh "held high-level positions within the White House, and he reportedly weighed in on how his former boss, Justice Kennedy, would rule on detainee treatment issues. Yet he claimed he had no knowledge of the torture policies of the Bush Administration during his 2006 confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee. This is precisely why this document production is so crucial in this confirmation process."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-bush-torture-20180718-story.html

He may have not been involved in the torture side but he is a shady mother fucker just like all the Bush Jr. goons.  He obviously weighed in on the legal representation issue.  Now before you start spouting that I support terrorist (which Cheney and Bush Jr. used against democrats in 2004 reelection), I just want to say that I think it is fucked up for CIA to run secret prisons while torturing people (torture is proven not to be effective interrogating method because the person will simply say anything to make it stop).  I can't think of one credible case where torture resulted in us gaining any advantage.  Just look at the aftermath of Abu Ghraib.  That surely won us a lot of friends in Iraq.

It has begun.

https://twitter.com/LawyersComm/status/1050507434815614976?s=19

And that is because Republicans have a demographic disadvantage. The millennial voter-base keeps growing and they are mostly blue.

I challenge you to explain why this ruling was wrong. I'll use your link and copy/paste directly from it.

A federal district court found that the state's plan was marred by racially discriminatory intent, watering down the voting power of the state's Latinos. The lower court ruled that the state failed to prove that its map did not discriminate. But Justice Samuel Alito, joined by the Supreme Court's other conservatives, said the lower court was wrong to hold that the state had the burden to prove it was not discriminating. "The burden of proof lies with the challenger, not the state," he wrote. The challengers, Alito continued, had the legal burden "to overcome the presumption of legislative good faith and show that the 2013 legislature acted with invidious intent" when it adjusted the boundaries in response to earlier court rulings.

Just answer that to me. What is wrong with that ruling?

Oh and I suppose based on your last comment, you believe that voter ID laws are discriminatory. If so, please explain how so.

That was 2013, and the problem still exist. the supreme court has the final say, and they didn't do enough to stop the voter suppression.

Never said voter ID is discriminatory. Strict laws does not equal discrimination.

i want a 2 question polygraph. hell i dont even need collaborating witneses, evidence or anything. lets see whoes life can be fucked up. never from a professor that donated to democrats and was a leftist before, never would that happen, or sound like a valley girl with a made up voice sounding totally bullshit like? no woman that has had real abuse is being served by this clear political circus.

time will tell where that blue wave went after it hits the red wall in november. my Spartacus moment...... lol the left is such a deranged joke.

More sources:

Indiana purged 460k voters.

Georgia is freezing 50k newly registered Black voters

North Dakota is disenfranchising thousands of Native Americans

Florida’s voter registration site went down two days before the deadline (and they never fixed it).

Although the Indiana article was written on April 20, 2017 the others are current. The North Dakota law seems to be the only one that truly targets a specific group. The rest affect a variety of people, unless there's more than what's presented here in these articles.

Honestly both Dems and republicans take turns to screw you people over. They are being paid by rich people to do their budding and that's why every president turns out to be a war monger because war makes money for the rich pricks. And you guys just eat up the defending your country non sense. Man if they they really only defended the country, they are bad as hell at it. Creating enemies out of people that had no reason to attack US in the first place. Doing what you did to iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, lybia, etc etc etc etc.... If you weren't going around changing regimes and basically invading half the world, no one would care about a land far away where there's the Pacific and the Atlantic between them and everybody else. It's hard for any country to invade you and even the terrorists that existed in an alternative timeline would have no reason to attack the US. Why would they. In that sense the US army is the worst protector ever. Also the trillions you loose in wars? That money goes somewhere. It goes to the rich pricks that profit off war. And having just 2 parties to deal with benefits them all too well. You're basically living in an oligarchy, you just don't know it yet.