What I noticed is the Democrats suddenly growing a collective spine and really fighting back against the most unpopular supreme court nominee in modern history with about a 35% approval rating. And he may get confirmed but if he does it is really going to cost the GOP. And maybe result in the first justice to be impeached for lying to congress.

 

Most unpopular supreme court nominee in modern history ...............
Doubtful.
Remember Robert Bork? Remember Clarence Thomas?

Wait. What did you mean by "modern history?" Maybe that's why you didn't consider Bork or Thomas in your post.

As for the rest of your post, just more of the General's wet dream hopes and prayors.

 

Yes I have to stand corrected on that. I thought I heard a report this morning that according to the latest polls Kavanaugh was now more unpopular than even Bork. But after researching it Bork had the least support at 31% followed by Kavanaugh at 37% but behind Harriet Miers who had at least 44%. And both Bork and Miers were forced to withdraw. And I could not find a rating for support for Thomas so if you can you can correct me on that as well.

So if you think Kavanaugh having 6 points more support than Bork who was forced to withdraw his nomination is a plus I guess that is up to you. But I think the greater point stands. The corrupt GOP is trying to ram one of the most disapproved supreme court nominees down the nation's throat.

 

I never really watched other hearings like this one but I have to admit, I think this is the smartest and honorable person I have ever seen. He is like a law library. Every senator on both sides had to read their statements and questions Word for Word off of a document that either they prepared or had someone else prepare for them. Kavanaugh new fax about the cases they asked them about and corrected many of them.

And then to say that he would have an allegiance to President Trump because of the nomination. He worked for president Bush and yet he ruled against him over 20 times. He’s a man that follows the letter of the law. Maybe that’s why so many people don’t like him. He’s not one to get bought.

The problem with politics today is that everyone assumes each individual person has to vote the way the party that they are affiliated with is voting. The idea and the pressure that members of the same party have to stick together is to me our system of democracy falling apart

I would rather see no party affiliations and everyone run on their own ideas and merits.

 

Kavanaugh is qualified and probably one of the best Supreme Court nominees I have ever seen.

 

Well, this is awkward.

While WH counsel in the early 2000s, Kavanaugh received confidential memos, letters, and talking points of Democratic staffers stolen by GOP Senate aide Manuel Miranda. Those were stolen from the Senate server by Miranda. While receiving the material in and of itself isn't an offense, he lied under oath about having received it during his own federal bench confirmation hearings.

Lisa Graves amassed research and wrote talking points for the Senate Judiciary Committee as the chief counsel for nominations for the minority. She wrote material, Miranda stole it, gave it to Kavanaugh, and he lied under oath about having received the material.

In an essay for Slate, she not only asserts that he ought not to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, but that he ought to be impeached from his current court appointment. I have to say, I'd be inclined to agree.

And excerpt from the piece that can be found here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics...r-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html

"During the hearings on his nomination to the D.C. Circuit a few months after the Miranda news broke, Kavanaugh actively hid his own involvement, lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee by stating unequivocally that he not only knew nothing of the episode, but also never even received any stolen material.

Even if Kavanaugh could claim that he didn’t have any hint at the time he received the emails that these documents were of suspect provenance—which I personally find implausible—there is no reasonable way for him to assert honestly that he had no idea what they were after the revelation of the theft. Any reasonable person would have realized they had been stolen, and certainly someone as smart as Kavanaugh would have too.

But he lied.

Under oath.

And he did so repeatedly.

Significantly, he did so even though a few years earlier he had helped spearhead the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for perjury in a private civil case. Back then Kavanaugh took lying under oath so seriously that he was determined to do everything he could to help remove a president from office.

Now we know that he procured his own confirmation to the federal bench by committing the same offense. And he did so not in a private case but in the midst of public hearings for a position of trust, for a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.

His actions were dishonorable and dishonest.

This week, as part of his efforts to be elevated to the highest court in the land, he has calmly continued to deceive, falsely claiming that it would have been perfectly normal for him to receive secret Democratic letters, talking points, and other materials. And if this absurd notion were somehow true, it would not even be consistent with what he testified to 12 and 14 years ago. Back then, he didn’t state it would have been normal for him to receive secret Democratic strategy materials.

Instead, he explicitly and repeatedly went out of his way to say he never had access to any such materials. These objectively false statements were offered under oath to convince the committee of something that was untrue. It was clearly intentional, with Kavanaugh going so far as to correct Sen. Kennedy when the senator described the document situation accurately.

That’s why—without even getting into other reasonable objections to his nomination—he should not be confirmed.

In fact, by his own standard, he should clearly be impeached."​

 

When Kavanaugh joins the Supreme Court and helps it to overturn Roe vs Wade the Republican Party will be keeping a long overdue promise to the Religious Right. It is ironic that one of the most sinful presidents to ever be elected is keeping this promise.

Ronald Reagan welcomed the support of the Religious Right, but did nothing to advance its agenda. That is changing.

 

They're not going to over turn Roe vs. Wade. Fucking alarmists.

 

Q: Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes -- in fact, states -- a woman's right to abortion?

TRUMP: Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states. If we put another two or perhaps three justice on, that's really what's going to be. That'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this: It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination.

Source: Third 2016 Presidential Debate in Las Vegas , Oct 19, 2016

--------

For the record, I want Roe vs Wade to be overturned, although I am in favor of free abortion on demand because of its eugenic benefits.

I think the Roe decision was a flimsy piece of legal reasoning that turned Christian conservatives into a steadfast Republican constituency.

By taking abortion off of the table of electoral politics the Roe decision enabled Christian conservatives to believe that they represented a moral majority thwarted by a small, but powerful minority of secular humanists.

If the Roe decision is overturned, abortion will quickly be legalized in most states by legislative action. Legislative action is the way issues that are easy to understand and highly emotional should be settled.

When Christian conservatives learn that most Americans disagree with them on this, their signature issue, most will retreat from politics, and resume their passive wait for the second coming of Christ. The Republican Party will be deprived of a large constituency.

 

42,000 on top of the other 400,000 + that have been released before the hearings even started.
How many of them have they read this 42.000 are not going to make one bit of differance

 

Hmmm, that is interesting. So you want Roe vs Wade to be overturned solely for political reasons.

Does the question of morality or when life begins factor at all into your opinion?

 

Never mind the documents; what do you do with a judge that has lied under oath??

 

There was no promise ever made to the Religious Right. Kavanaugh is not and never has been affiliated with the Religious Right.

All you are doing is repeating Democrat propaganda lies.

 

You are right. Roe vs Wade is not even an issue. The Supreme Court has had a conservative majority in the past and Roe vs Wade was not overturned.

This is just proof the Democrats have nothing on Kavanaugh, so they are desperate and grasping at straws..

 

You

from Canada am I right?

 

D L. What is your obsession with wanting abortion to be a politicians decision

No politician should decide what anyone does at anytime. Don't you get it you goofy dog

 

I guess you're in favor of decriminalizing murder then.

 

Oh yea and that cute dog wants you to stop using he's picture. He pm me earlier
Lol.

 

Yes

if it's good enough for Chicago it's good enough for me. Land of Obama

 

It is interesting to see how people who like a politician think that the politician agrees with them on issues where this is not true.

What part of this don't you understand?

--------

Q: Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes -- in fact, states -- a woman's right to abortion?

TRUMP: Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states. If we put another two or perhaps three justice on, that's really what's going to be. That'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this: It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination.

Source: Third 2016 Presidential Debate in Las Vegas , Oct 19, 2016