Kavanaugh Accuser’s Lawyer: It’s Not Her Job To Corroborate Her Story

Flash said:
There were about 36 judicial nominees blocked. Before Obama Democrats set a new record blocking Bush's appointments and Republicans surpassed that record under Obama.

"By our count, cloture was filed on 36 judicial nominations during the first five years of Obama's presidency, the same total as the previous 40 years combined."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...nate-republicans-filibuster-obama-court-nomi/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies
Click to expand...

But I thought this was about the SCOTUS??

How many of them had unsupported accusations made against them??
 
floridafan said:
Its worth a whole lot in the court of public opinion. So what do you say, if Kavanaugh has nothing to hide he should be happy to take a polygraph. Right?
Click to expand...

He's already lied in those hearings about other things, no one cares, the president lies daily, no one cares, america is one big lie, no one cares.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But I thought this was about the SCOTUS??

How many of them had unsupported accusations made against them??
Click to expand...

Not entirely. I made comment "I can't remember one. I do remember Republicans using the filibuster to block many of Obama's judicial nominations."

I just referred to judicial nominees because, as I said, I don't remember any specifics about a Supreme Court nominee. But, it was also in response to my point that both parties are willing to resort to the same tactics to accomplish their goal.

Several GOP Senators vowed to block any Hillary Clinton Supreme Court nominees.

And Republicans sought to smear Anita Hill including a book the author admitted had made-up facts.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/cruz-supreme-court-blockade-230363
 
Flash said:
Very true, just as the right did to Garland. They were not going to confirm anyone nominated by Obama (even though Garland and Kavanaugh voted together 93% of the time.
Click to expand...

WTF is this Garland shit? When did Republicans ever trot out some lying asshole to fabricate outrageous claims like the Democratic Party of the Jackass to smear good people they disagree with?

NEVER you rabid loon. Comparing this to Garland is about as asinine and repugnant and claiming Russians got Trump elected. Moron.
 
Truth Detector said:
WTF is this Garland shit? When did Republicans ever trot out some lying asshole to fabricate outrageous claims like the Democratic Party of the Jackass to smear good people they disagree with?

NEVER you rabid loon. Comparing this to Garland is about as asinine and repugnant and claiming Russians got Trump elected. Moron.
Click to expand...

keep whining little bitch
 
CFM said:
Joe Biden, years ago, approved of how the Garland situation was handled.
Click to expand...

Biden Rule on Nominees – 1992
Senator Joe Biden in 1992: "President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not, name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
 
Flash said:
I don't think he was "setting a standard." He was coming up with an argument to benefit his party at the time.
Click to expand...

Chuck Schumer then and Now on SCOTUS
In 2007, approximately 18 months before President George W. Bush left office, Sen. Chuck Schumer said the Senate "should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances."
 
Truth Detector said:
Biden Rule on Nominees – 1992
Senator Joe Biden in 1992: "President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not, name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
Click to expand...

Not only did Joe say a nomination shouldn't happen during the election year, he indicated that a majority of the previous Presidents had followed that same standard.
 
Micawber said:
Who cares about what Biden said? We care about what happens. What happened was Obama's choice was scuttled because Repukes wouldn't allow it to go forward.
It is patently clear the Republican "standard" is "whatever the fuck we can possibly do because we are losing power and so we need to get what we can now."

It's gpoing to be delicious when democrats follow the standard, fuck you you assholes eat shit you will not get anything ever and like it because we have all the power and forever will
until you either embrace pluralism or white people decide to fuck more"

So eat shit.
Click to expand...

How does anyone describe this level of shrill mental retardation from the liberal left. We don't need any other reason to ensure Democrats don't win than this fall. This is what the left thinks of anyone they disagree with people. They truly are Hitlerian in the Fascism.

giphy.gif
 
Flash said:
I can't remember one. I do remember Republicans using the filibuster to block many of Obama's judicial nominations. That is what led to the "nuclear option" that simply required a majority vote that Republicans later extended to the Supreme Court. I also remember Republicans refusing to hold hearings or a vote on Garland. Both sides use whatever methods are available to block appointments they oppose.

I am not objecting to the use of these methods, only saying both sides use them. Republicans should have gone ahead with the vote on 9/20. Democrats are just seeking to delay the vote because it will not change any votes.
Click to expand...

Hypocrite Harry Reid: Blocking Supreme Court Nominees OK In 2005
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top