|
Jess from VA
|
 |
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2018, 05:29:52 PM » |
|
Garland was not going to get confirmed no matter what.
Why waste time on hearings?
And don't tell me they had a duty to give him a vote. They have a duty to do productive things, not screw around with a no-win candidate.
Garland was not a bad judge, except he didn't like the 2d Amendment (which is why he was nominated). No hearing, no vote, no chance. All good.
The dems would do the exact same thing if they were in power at the time (and it was a Rep president appointment).
Some Republicans voted on and allowed Kagan and Sotomeyor onto the Court.... to their everlasting shame. It was not going to happen again. It will take decades for then to die.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 05:35:09 PM by Jess from VA »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
¿spoom
|
|
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2018, 05:41:14 PM » |
|
The previous 2 posts are right on.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bighead
|
|
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2018, 06:02:22 PM » |
|
How in the hell can anyone forget the Obama administration when this administration brings it up just about every day. If POTUS is pissed about anything, it's always Obama's fault, all he does is blame everyone else for everything. You can go just so far. He doesn't take responsibility for anything.
John
180* in ways of thinking. What would you like him to take responsibility for? Trying to get our country on the right track? You freaking Libs are a riot. And I know you all are employed, so why in the hell do you want to give more so the do nothings can live better than you? For doing exactly nothing but saying I desereve it. Wake the F up. The FREE S H I T army is way too big now. I am helping pull that train. About 5 people to one on it and I am getting tired. Who will keep pulling it? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 06:06:45 PM by Bighead »
|
Logged
|
1997 Bumble Bee
1999 Interstate (sold)
2016 Wing
|
|
|
|
Robert
|
|
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2018, 06:15:45 PM » |
|
A very interesting few minutes of Graham questions Kavanaugh, I wonder why the line of questioning  https://twitter.com/i/status/1037474403334979584 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 06:17:44 PM by Robert »
|
Logged
|
“Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t have time for all that.”
|
|
|
|
Jess from VA
|
|
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2018, 06:31:48 PM » |
|
I can't watch those clips Robert, but I'm sure Lindsey is asking questions to allow Kavanaugh to repudiate any involvement in or knowledge of things (mud) the Dems are or likely will be slinging at him. We lawyers call this defusing the bullsh!t (before it's thrown). I served with Lindsey Graham in the Air Force when we were both USAF judge advocate captains in the 80's. I defended two general courts martial he prosecuted. I can't say how he represents SC, but back in the Air Force, he was a pretty smart fellow. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Robert
|
|
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2018, 06:56:52 PM » |
|
I can't watch those clips Robert, but I'm sure Lindsey is asking questions to allow Kavanaugh to repudiate any involvement in or knowledge of things (mud) the Dems are or likely will be slinging at him. We lawyers call this defusing the bullsh!t (before it's thrown). I served with Lindsey Graham in the Air Force when we were both USAF judge advocate captains in the 80's. I defended two general courts martial he prosecuted. I can't say how he represents SC, but back in the Air Force, he was a pretty smart fellow. Might be able to see this one https://youtu.be/Tocc8EolxXg?t=25m49sGraham said post 911 we have been at war since then kavanaugh responded that he agreed and congress passed the use of military force in 2011 and its still in effect, but then things go on till Graham makes this point. Graham said I want American citizens to understand that you do not have constitutional rights to collaborate with the enemy, there is a body of law well developed before 911 that understood the difference between basic law and the law of armed conflict. Establishing legal precedence that US citizens can be tried in a military court as enemy combatants. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 07:13:13 PM by Robert »
|
Logged
|
“Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t have time for all that.”
|
|
|
|
Jess from VA
|
|
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2018, 07:07:28 PM » |
|
I would not be surprised if Republican senators gave Kavanaugh copies of the questions they would ask, prior to the hearings. That is no crime. (And not like TV people giving debate questions to Hillary before the debate.)
This is a dog and pony show pure and simple, and you do what you can to make your dog look good.
I like Kavanaugh (and am not calling him a dog).
I didn't watch the whole clip, but it seemed to be covering the Bo Bergdahl case at the beginning.
You can be certain that all Rep questions are designed to help him, and Dem questions to hurt him.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Robert
|
|
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2018, 07:22:55 PM » |
|
I would not be surprised if Republican senators gave Kavanaugh copies of the questions they would ask, prior to the hearings. That is no crime. (And not like TV people giving debate questions to Hillary before the debate.)
This is a dog and pony show pure and simple, and you do what you can to make your dog look good.
I was thinking the question and speech addressed the American citizen was more for future cases. Not only to for appearance because this short segment differs much from the fluff before it. I heard before but it was interesting to note we are at war. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t have time for all that.”
|
|
|
|
Serk
|
|
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2018, 07:27:49 PM » |
|
 (Dog and pony show.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Never ask a geek 'Why?',just nod your head and slowly back away...  IBA# 22107 VRCC# 7976 VRCCDS# 226 1998 Valkyrie Standard 2008 Gold Wing Taxation is theft. μολὼν λαβέ |
|
|
|
Jess from VA
|
|
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2018, 07:31:53 PM » |
|
(Dog and pony show.) Yes, the clean ones. Not like Tijuana.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Serk
|
|
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2018, 07:32:46 PM » |
|
(Dog and pony show.) Yes, the clean ones. Not like Tijuana.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Never ask a geek 'Why?',just nod your head and slowly back away... IBA# 22107 VRCC# 7976 VRCCDS# 226 1998 Valkyrie Standard 2008 Gold Wing Taxation is theft. μολὼν λαβέ |
|
|
|
scooperhsd
|
|
« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2018, 07:48:46 PM » |
|
If I was as qualified as Judge Kavanaugh (and we all know I'm not), I'd have to really think it over if the grilling in the circus of the Senate is really worth a SCOTUS seat.
I remember a time when it was not nearly this atrocious (confirmation hearings , that is).
I remember when it was considered rude to steal a Supreme Court nomination. How is it being stolen? Yea I want to hear this too. He is referring to Merrick Garlands nomination. Remember, the guy they wouldn't even talk to or hold a hearing for ? Against their sworn oaths. Rightfully so. The sitting president does not select a judge in an election year. I'd have to disagree with you on this. The Senate did NOT do their jobs when they would not even hold hearings for him.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gavin_Sons
Member
Posts: 7109
VRCC# 32796
columbus indiana
|
|
« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2018, 02:16:21 AM » |
|
If I was as qualified as Judge Kavanaugh (and we all know I'm not), I'd have to really think it over if the grilling in the circus of the Senate is really worth a SCOTUS seat.
I remember a time when it was not nearly this atrocious (confirmation hearings , that is).
I remember when it was considered rude to steal a Supreme Court nomination. How is it being stolen? Yea I want to hear this too. He is referring to Merrick Garlands nomination. Remember, the guy they wouldn't even talk to or hold a hearing for ? Against their sworn oaths. Rightfully so. The sitting president does not select a judge in an election year.  What's so funny about that? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
baldo
Member
Posts: 6961
Youbetcha
Cape Cod, MA
|
|
« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2018, 05:03:03 AM » |
|
I'd have to disagree with you on this. The Senate did NOT do their jobs when they would not even hold hearings for him....
Exactly. That seat was outright stolen. McConnell is one sneaky scumbag, history will not be kind to him. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
baldo
Member
Posts: 6961
Youbetcha
Cape Cod, MA
|
|
« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2018, 05:04:22 AM » |
|
Garland was not going to get confirmed no matter what.
Why waste time on hearings?
And don't tell me they had a duty to give him a vote. They have a duty to do productive things, not screw around with a no-win candidate.
Garland was not a bad judge, except he didn't like the 2d Amendment (which is why he was nominated). No hearing, no vote, no chance. All good.
The dems would do the exact same thing if they were in power at the time (and it was a Rep president appointment).
Some Republicans voted on and allowed Kagan and Sotomeyor onto the Court.... to their everlasting shame. It was not going to happen again. It will take decades for then to die.
Are you serious? What world do you live in? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
f6john
Member
Posts: 9722
Christ first and always
Richmond, Kentucky
|
|
« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2018, 06:13:51 AM » |
|
I'd have to disagree with you on this. The Senate did NOT do their jobs when they would not even hold hearings for him....
Exactly. That seat was outright stolen. McConnell is one sneaky scumbag, history will not be kind to him. Yea maybe, but he’s my sneaky scumbag. More or less sneaky than his colleagues? Hardly discernible in my mind. Hisroty probably won’t be kind to him given the direction our institutions of higher learning have taken. We already see how differently we view current events so one can only imagine what someone will say in generations to come. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gavin_Sons
Member
Posts: 7109
VRCC# 32796
columbus indiana
|
|
« Reply #57 on: September 06, 2018, 06:24:07 AM » |
|
or is it a lie that your "facts" are true? All i have ever heard is Obama did not have the right to nominate a judge. If he did, His nomination would be a judge today. Why didn't the guy he nominate get the job? Didn't the Dems have control back then? None of it makes any sense why he is not a judge. Apparently there was some rule or law broken. I'm surprised Obama didn't executive order him to be a judge. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
f6john
Member
Posts: 9722
Christ first and always
Richmond, Kentucky
|
|
« Reply #58 on: September 06, 2018, 06:42:07 AM » |
|
or is it a lie that your "facts" are true? All i have ever heard is Obama did not have the right to nominate a judge. If he did, His nomination would be a judge today. Why didn't the guy he nominate get the job? Didn't the Dems have control back then? None of it makes any sense why he is not a judge. Apparently there was some rule or law broken. I'm surprised Obama didn't executive order him to be a judge. Republicans controlled the Senate and McConnell did not allow a Senate hearing. Those are the facts that affected the last nomination of King Obama. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
baldo
Member
Posts: 6961
Youbetcha
Cape Cod, MA
|
|
« Reply #59 on: September 06, 2018, 06:45:41 AM » |
|
or is it a lie that your "facts" are true? All i have ever heard is Obama did not have the right to nominate a judge. If he did, His nomination would be a judge today. Why didn't the guy he nominate get the job? Didn't the Dems have control back then? None of it makes any sense why he is not a judge. Apparently there was some rule or law broken. I'm surprised Obama didn't executive order him to be a judge. Sounds like some reading up on the subject is in order. http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070McConnell violated these rules by never even meeting with Obama's nominee, Merritt Garland. Never mind a hearing. Unprecedented obstruction by a sitting member of the Senate. And no, the right was in full control of the Senate, that's why he was the Senate Majority Leader. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
¿spoom
|
|
« Reply #60 on: September 06, 2018, 06:47:54 AM » |
|
or is it a lie that your "facts" are true? All i have ever heard is Obama did not have the right to nominate a judge. If he did, His nomination would be a judge today. Why didn't the guy he nominate get the job? Didn't the Dems have control back then? None of it makes any sense why he is not a judge. Apparently there was some rule or law broken. I'm surprised Obama didn't executive order him to be a judge. Republicans controlled the Senate and McConnell did not allow a Senate hearing. Those are the facts that affected the last nomination of King Obama. Correct. Republicans FINALLY took a "by any means necessary" lesson from the Schumerlosi's that they usually get spanked by. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gavin_Sons
Member
Posts: 7109
VRCC# 32796
columbus indiana
|
|
« Reply #61 on: September 06, 2018, 06:49:05 AM » |
|
Ah I see, i was only interested because everyone keeps bitching about it. Now i'm no longer interested. Carry on  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
..
|
|
« Reply #62 on: September 06, 2018, 06:52:35 AM » |
|
Who is fronting the money for the protesters and their Halloween costumes. or ddi the orange robed women pass around a sewing pattern.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
baldo
Member
Posts: 6961
Youbetcha
Cape Cod, MA
|
|
« Reply #63 on: September 06, 2018, 07:32:27 AM » |
|
Correct. Republicans FINALLY took a "by any means necessary" lesson from the Schumerlosi's that they usually get spanked by.
Wow, you've certainly got an interesting way of looking at things. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
baldo
Member
Posts: 6961
Youbetcha
Cape Cod, MA
|
|
« Reply #64 on: September 06, 2018, 07:33:10 AM » |
|
Who is fronting the money for the protesters and their Halloween costumes. or ddi the orange robed women pass around a sewing pattern.
No attempts to distract are allowed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
f6john
Member
Posts: 9722
Christ first and always
Richmond, Kentucky
|
|
« Reply #65 on: September 06, 2018, 07:37:06 AM » |
|
And why were there no repercussions for McConnell? Because the exact same tactic will be used by the Democrats when the opportunity presents itself and everybody knows it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
baldo
Member
Posts: 6961
Youbetcha
Cape Cod, MA
|
|
« Reply #66 on: September 06, 2018, 07:42:58 AM » |
|
And why were there no repercussions for McConnell? Because the exact same tactic will be used by the Democrats when the opportunity presents itself and everybody knows it.
You guys keep saying that. It's an easy out. Because I don't agree. What the Dems should have done is expelled him from the Senate for pulling that sh it. I'm pissed as hell at them for not doing something, anything to make that bastard held accountable. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Moonshot_1
|
|
« Reply #67 on: September 06, 2018, 08:09:54 AM » |
|
or is it a lie that your "facts" are true? All i have ever heard is Obama did not have the right to nominate a judge. If he did, His nomination would be a judge today. Why didn't the guy he nominate get the job? Didn't the Dems have control back then? None of it makes any sense why he is not a judge. Apparently there was some rule or law broken. I'm surprised Obama didn't executive order him to be a judge. Sounds like some reading up on the subject is in order. http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070McConnell violated these rules by never even meeting with Obama's nominee, Merritt Garland. Never mind a hearing. Unprecedented obstruction by a sitting member of the Senate. And no, the right was in full control of the Senate, that's why he was the Senate Majority Leader. You didn't post "rules". You posted a link to a "Guide" of the nomination process. McConnell was well within the Senate rules to do what he did. I think it was an absolute travesty, but within the Senate Rules. The Democrats didn't complain a whole lot because at the time Trump would never be President. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mike Luken
Cherokee, Ia.
Former Iowa Patriot Guard Ride Captain
|
|
|
|
The emperor has no clothes
|
|
« Reply #68 on: September 06, 2018, 08:18:43 AM » |
|
or is it a lie that your "facts" are true? All i have ever heard is Obama did not have the right to nominate a judge. If he did, His nomination would be a judge today. Why didn't the guy he nominate get the job? Didn't the Dems have control back then? None of it makes any sense why he is not a judge. Apparently there was some rule or law broken. I'm surprised Obama didn't executive order him to be a judge. Sounds like some reading up on the subject is in order. http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070McConnell violated these rules by never even meeting with Obama's nominee, Merritt Garland. Never mind a hearing. Unprecedented obstruction by a sitting member of the Senate. And no, the right was in full control of the Senate, that's why he was the Senate Majority Leader. You didn't post "rules". You posted a link to a "Guide" of the nomination process. McConnell was well within the Senate rules to do what he did. I think it was an absolute travesty, but within the Senate Rules. The Democrats didn't complain a whole lot because at the time Trump would never be President. Article 2 of the Constitution says : [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Seems readily apparent even to a dumb butcher that they failed their oath to uphold the Constitution. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 08:21:26 AM by meathead »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
baldo
Member
Posts: 6961
Youbetcha
Cape Cod, MA
|
|
« Reply #69 on: September 06, 2018, 08:22:49 AM » |
|
You didn't post "rules". You posted a link to a "Guide" of the nomination process. McConnell was well within the Senate rules to do what he did. I think it was an absolute travesty, but within the Senate Rules.
The Democrats didn't complain a whole lot because at the time Trump would never be President.
How do you see it that he was within the rules? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
baldo
Member
Posts: 6961
Youbetcha
Cape Cod, MA
|
|
« Reply #70 on: September 06, 2018, 08:23:40 AM » |
|
Future progressives will have a new set of encyclopedias with volumes such as Hillary Clinton- Why I Lost, Omarosa- Racism in the WH, the Washington Post- always use Anonymous Sources, the NY Times- Same thing, Nancy Pelosi- Pass it to see what's in it and Give back your crumbs, Ocasio-Cortez - I am NOT the expert, Bernie Sanders- I was a teenage Communist, I mean Democratic Socialist, Colin Kaepernik- What I gave up for you, the new savior, Barack Obama- Lie and count on their stupidity (yes our words, not the GOPs), Et Al.
Not very helpful. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
baldo
Member
Posts: 6961
Youbetcha
Cape Cod, MA
|
|
« Reply #71 on: September 06, 2018, 08:27:54 AM » |
|
And let's not forget the obstructionist Reid who blocked EVERY piece of legislation the GOP lead congress passed from being voted on in the Senate.
I don't have his record in front of me. If I remember correctly, most of the proposals put forth by the right were so laughably egregious, they were 'denied' out of turn. I'm confident that if you did some serious digging you could attempt to back up your claim. I just don't have the time. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 08:31:16 AM by baldo »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Serk
|
|
« Reply #72 on: September 06, 2018, 08:29:17 AM » |
|
he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Seems readily apparent even to a dumb butcher that they failed their oath to uphold the Constitution.
I'd say the senate didn't Consent. Seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm just a humble computer geek. The best way to deal with a divisive troll is to ignore them until they go away. That's what the senate did. As a previous occupant of the White House once said "Elections have consequences." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Never ask a geek 'Why?',just nod your head and slowly back away... IBA# 22107 VRCC# 7976 VRCCDS# 226 1998 Valkyrie Standard 2008 Gold Wing Taxation is theft. μολὼν λαβέ |
|
|
|
Moonshot_1
|
|
« Reply #73 on: September 06, 2018, 08:30:25 AM » |
|
You didn't post "rules". You posted a link to a "Guide" of the nomination process. McConnell was well within the Senate rules to do what he did. I think it was an absolute travesty, but within the Senate Rules.
The Democrats didn't complain a whole lot because at the time Trump would never be President.
How do you see it that he was within the rules? From Art. 1 Sec. 5 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. The rule in the Senate is the Maj. Leader sets the agenda. McConnell didn't want a hearing for Garland so he didn't put it in the agenda. This should not be construed that I support that decision. I don't. But it was a decision he had the right to make. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 08:33:46 AM by Moonshot_1 »
|
Logged
|
Mike Luken
Cherokee, Ia.
Former Iowa Patriot Guard Ride Captain
|
|
|
|
G-Man
|
|
« Reply #74 on: September 06, 2018, 08:55:52 AM » |
|
Future progressives will have a new set of encyclopedias with volumes such as Hillary Clinton- Why I Lost, Omarosa- Racism in the WH, the Washington Post- always use Anonymous Sources, the NY Times- Same thing, Nancy Pelosi- Pass it to see what's in it and Give back your crumbs, Ocasio-Cortez - I am NOT the expert, Bernie Sanders- I was a teenage Communist, I mean Democratic Socialist, Colin Kaepernik- What I gave up for you, the new savior, Barack Obama- Lie and count on their stupidity (yes our words, not the GOPs), Et Al.
Not very helpful. Jokes, but don't worry, I've finally gotten your point. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The emperor has no clothes
|
|
« Reply #75 on: September 06, 2018, 09:02:48 AM » |
|
he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Seems readily apparent even to a dumb butcher that they failed their oath to uphold the Constitution.
I'd say the senate didn't Consent. Seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm just a humble computer geek. The best way to deal with a divisive troll is to ignore them until they go away. That's what the senate did. As a previous occupant of the White House once said "Elections have consequences." The Constitution says “Advise and Consent” not just consent. Being as they had no meetings, no hearings I think even you would agree they were derelict in their duty. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The emperor has no clothes
|
|
« Reply #76 on: September 06, 2018, 09:06:08 AM » |
|
You didn't post "rules". You posted a link to a "Guide" of the nomination process. McConnell was well within the Senate rules to do what he did. I think it was an absolute travesty, but within the Senate Rules.
The Democrats didn't complain a whole lot because at the time Trump would never be President.
How do you see it that he was within the rules? From Art. 1 Sec. 5 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. The rule in the Senate is the Maj. Leader sets the agenda. McConnell didn't want a hearing for Garland so he didn't put it in the agenda. This should not be construed that I support that decision. I don't. But it was a decision he had the right to make. The Constitution supersedes any rules they make for themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Serk
|
|
« Reply #77 on: September 06, 2018, 09:40:30 AM » |
|
The Constitution says “Advise and Consent” not just consent. Being as they had no meetings, no hearings I think even you would agree they were derelict in their duty.
Once again my carnivore enabling friend, we see things very differently... And that's okay. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Never ask a geek 'Why?',just nod your head and slowly back away... IBA# 22107 VRCC# 7976 VRCCDS# 226 1998 Valkyrie Standard 2008 Gold Wing Taxation is theft. μολὼν λαβέ |
|
|
baldo
Member
Posts: 6961
Youbetcha
Cape Cod, MA
|
|
« Reply #78 on: September 06, 2018, 09:41:56 AM » |
|
Future progressives will have a new set of encyclopedias with volumes such as Hillary Clinton- Why I Lost, Omarosa- Racism in the WH, the Washington Post- always use Anonymous Sources, the NY Times- Same thing, Nancy Pelosi- Pass it to see what's in it and Give back your crumbs, Ocasio-Cortez - I am NOT the expert, Bernie Sanders- I was a teenage Communist, I mean Democratic Socialist, Colin Kaepernik- What I gave up for you, the new savior, Barack Obama- Lie and count on their stupidity (yes our words, not the GOPs), Et Al.
Not very helpful. Jokes, but don't worry, I've finally gotten your point.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MAD6Gun
|
|
« Reply #79 on: September 06, 2018, 09:44:31 AM » |
|
Garland was not going to get confirmed no matter what.
Why waste time on hearings?
And don't tell me they had a duty to give him a vote. They have a duty to do productive things, not screw around with a no-win candidate.
Garland was not a bad judge, except he didn't like the 2d Amendment (which is why he was nominated). No hearing, no vote, no chance. All good.
The dems would do the exact same thing if they were in power at the time (and it was a Rep president appointment).
Some Republicans voted on and allowed Kagan and Sotomeyor onto the Court.... to their everlasting shame. It was not going to happen again. It will take decades for then to die.
Are you serious? What world do you live in? If you are commenting about his claim that republicans didn't vote for Sotomayor and Kagen. You would be wrong.. 9 republicans voted for Sotomayor and 5 voted for Kagen. Also when it comes to the law I would be more inclined to think Jess knows one hell if a lot more about the law then you do...... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
