Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

What does the Biden Rule have to do with Kavanaugh? Let me answer that question for you, not a damn thing. The President isn't changing.

 

Of course, if Democrats could have held the senate, they would have Garland in the court now, I am all for when the Democrats take back the senate and WH and some point down the line (which they will at some point), they do what they want to do, and GOP should just shut the F up.

 

They did, it's called Obamacare, and it's why the Republicans trounced them in Obama's 1st midterm election.

It should also be noted it was the Harry Reid that changed the rules on judicial nominees, the so called nuclear option, that allowed for Kavanaugh to only be confirmed with a simple majority.

 

What nonsense. Garland is very pertinent to what's happening now, and if you don't believe that, you're delusional, with all due respect. You are one of the most delusional, dishonest, despicable, and wildly uninformed people on this board. Keep fooling yourself.

 

He did this for all executive and judicial nominees except for Supreme Court nominees because senate Republicans were working in lockstep to oppose anyone and everyone Obama appointed. If you honestly think McConnell wouldn't have used the nuclear option to get a Supreme Court nominee through if Reid hadn't done so with all other judicial nominees in the first place, then you're completely clueless. McConnell doesn't care at all about precedence or decency.

 

So what have we solved today gentlemen?

 

Well he did warn Reid about it coming back to bite him in the ass when he did it, but it's hilarious to see you project the actions of the Dems until others.

 

Well, because elections have consequences.....when Democrats lost the Senate they lost the ability to merely rubber stamp any nominee that Obama put forward. No SCOTUS nominee can end up on the court permanently without the advice and consent of the Senate. Justice Garland was not deemed acceptable to the Republican controlled Senate, so he never ended up on the bench. Obama could have withdrawn the nomination and picked someone else who might have managed to entice the Republican controlled Senate to confirm his pick....but he didn't do that. As always, it's "my way or the highway" with Obama even when he's arguing from a position of weakness and the Senate picked the highway.

I'm not sure why I have to explain how the government works to you, honestly you should be old enough to know by now.

 

Yeah there were, his ideology was unacceptable to those who had to approve of him to get him on the bench.

 

Garland hosted an illegal craps game in his basement back in high school. I lost 10s of dollars.

 

Every bit as credible an allegation as Christine Blasey Ford.

 

[Premium Post]
Oh boy, the knives are coming out for any libs who don't hold the party line!

Elections have consequences, and under Obama, the Democrats lost the Senate in several elections. Those elections have consequences, which is why Merrick Garland is not on the Supreme Court, and never will be. Will of the people.

GOOD DAY

 

[Premium Post]
I would also point out that Obama was a gay prostitute to pay for his college and had Donald Young, his choir director and gay lover in Chicago, murdered. There is far more evidence to support these points than there is against Brett Kavanaugh. Republicans have been overly gracious to grant Blasey Ford a hearing. No such generosity was offered to the surviving family of Donald Young.

SHAME

 

How do you actually define credible? Who determines the credibility aspect of it?

Did you shout credible when Franken's accuser presented hovering hands pic and accused him of making her uncomfortable with a staged kiss?

Or is it credible when it fits your agenda, citation-to-citation man?

 

It is the reason that people on here are so charged. Just look at mojo poster crying his heart out about all the dishonesty and smearing the democrats are doing. Anything to draw away how corrupt and complicit his party has become. It's laughable when people try to profess morals & principles after making a deal with the "devil". [now I wait to be accused of some funny name syndrome}

 

One definition would be "offering reasonable grounds for being believed", I think to me there is an element of likeliness of accuracy. If a claim is well founded to the point where it is seen as likely to be true, it is credible.

When it comes to Franken, you had not only the allegations of the one woman, but many saying that he crossed the line with them, so what was a shaky claim at first became more credible than initially.....but even then, it wasn't credible enough for charges or even a criminal investigation. Also, that was an allegation with a specific date of when the act happened, a specific place where it happened, and plenty of witnesses. I think it's likely that Franken was just a creep who liked to push the edges of what he can get away with and it pissed a few people off. I don't think anything he did was criminal, just in bad taste.

 

Do you not see how shaky your definition is? Did Tweeden witnesses come forward to say anything? Would she remember the date if it wasn't for some documents reminding her when it was?
Credibility depends on how many people believe that woman. And I'm willing to bet that more people will believe Ford than Kavanaugh if she testifies based on reputation alone.

 

Yep. This will happen. Delay. Delay


Lolz