Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 197

Thread: Kavanaugh Supreme Court Nomination

  1. #101
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    What makes him horrible?
    Spending his life as a republican political operative but claiming to be a ‘balls and strikes’ jurist.

  2. #102
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    What makes him horrible?
    Potentially having a gambling problem. I have no idea if this is a real concern but we’ll never know until after he’s been confirmed because the republicans in the senate don’t care about doing their job of vetting him. There’s enough to suspect the truth of this claim that we should at least confirm it one way or the other. But, as I mentioned upthread, integrity is not a republican strong point anymore. Sad.

  3. #103
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I don't believe I ever said a word about him, nor do I remember Republicans raking him over the coals (although perhaps one or two did, I really don't remember), his nomination never got that far.

    I never thought Garland was a threat to all that's right in the world as Democrats apparently do with Kavanaugh.
    Apparently the republicans in the senate suddenly did think he was a threat since they were afraid to even talk to him. Talk about a good man whose career was derailed. {Crying crocodile tears for kavanaugh now. Boo f’ing hoo}

  4. #104
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    2,977
    I find it such a waste of time to be grandstanding in confirmation hearings. The Constitution doesn’t require such shows. It’s rather simple. The President makes a nomination, they vote yes or no. They don’t have to have a reason why. For that matter, there is no requirement the person must be a learned or experienced jurist. And personally I’d be satisfied if they reduced the number of justices. There’s no requirement for nine. And I’d like to see a reaffirmation vote every eight years....except they’d use that for more grandstanding. The only requirement for a justice to remain on the court is his/her “good behavior”. That turns out to be a life appointment....but isn’t stated as such in again....THE CONSTITUTION!

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    I find it such a waste of time to be grandstanding in confirmation hearings.
    It’s not a waste of time if you’re trying to rev up the voters for November. You can play the tough prosecutor. You preen and strike heroic poses with no risk except perhaps beclowning yourself. You can brandish anonymous accusations at the eleventh hour like a badly plotted movie. You can strut and fret your hour upon the stage without having to pay for air time.

  6. #106
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    12,793
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Spending his life as a republican political operative but claiming to be a ‘balls and strikes’ jurist.
    I dont know what a balls and strikes jurist is, but for some reason
    I find “Republican operative” funny. Thanks for the laugh!

  7. #107
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    I dont know what a balls and strikes jurist is, but for some reason
    I find “Republican operative” funny. Thanks for the laugh!
    I'll let John Roberts take credit for coining the balls and strikes jurist phrase. Personally i'm smart enough to realize that there is no such thing. If there were we could fire the whole damn court and just ask Siri to make the decisions.

    And I suppose it'll be hilarious when Kavanaugh is sitting on the court pretzelizing his logic in ways Scalia could only have dreamed of in order to justify whatever decision he is making.

  8. #108
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,866
    I suppose at the end of the day you guys are right. The advise part of advise and consent doesn't really mean anything. After all, the party not in power really has no say in this process so they might as well have just skipped the hearing entirely and voted the clown in on the initial go around. At least that would've been more honest and honorable than this sham fraud of a confirmation hearing where they weakly pretended to vet the guy. But honor is not a character trait that any republican senator seems to have at this point. The last one with any honor died a couple of weeks ago.

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    5,091
    Totally agree JP.

  10. #110
    Senior Member dmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    962
    I assume then that the Democrats hope to win the house and then no judges will come up for a vote. They will say Garland didn’t get a vote so now it’s payback time. And from here on out unless one party or the other controlles all three branches, nothing will get done. Unless of coarse it benefits the ruling class.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •