What does this even mean? Sen. Lisa Murkowski -- “I believe he is a good man. It just may be that in my view he’s not the right man for the court at this time.”
Actually, liberals have been fighting to win the Court since the New Deal. Conservatives are pretty new to that fight.
Yep. I don't think this is motivating any group in favor of Democrats that wasn't already motivated and isn't consistently motivated. Nobody needs to beg rabid, crackpot feminists to go vote for Democrats. Furthermore, this could and definitely should motivate men. If Democrats win, they're going to advocate for a presumption of guilt if you're a guy accused of assault. Pretty hard to justify voting for people of that mindset if you're a guy.
When you see the courts as an entitlement in the media, I can see why they might believe that. It's 100-percent false, of course. But they have to blame something, and plastic bags aren't running for re-election, so they're a safe target.
I like how the Republicans stood strong this week. Maybe they have discovered how to have more of a backbone going forward.
That's actually a reasonably good article by the Times. Gotta love this quote from Cocaine Mitch. “The tactics that were used completely backfired,” said Mr. McConnell. “Harassing members at their homes, crowding the halls with people acting horribly, the effort to humiliate us really helped me unify my conference. So I want to thank these clowns for all the help they provided.”
I think it's a rallying cry for them to try to build their intensity. They know it's BS. It's just too obvious. Just consider how most Republican justices got confirmed. They have usually been people whose paper trails were light, so there would be ambiguity about how they'd rule on things. That's why there have been plenty of moderate and even some liberal Republican justices. Democratic nominees didn't comment during hearings on how they'd rule on specific cases, but there was never any ambiguity about their opinions based on their past conduct and/or writings. It was just assumed that all Democratic nominees would be social liberals, and for the last 55 years that has been true. Just consider RBG. She was general counsel to the ACLU. Would a Republican ever nominate someone so demonstrably and flagrantly committed to their side? No chance in hell.
Honestly, no matter who you are, if you have to ask people to call you by some title, you're an insecure tool. I call MDs "Doctor," because they've earned that respect. Furthermore, I don't think I've ever heard an actual MD ask to be called "Doctor," because their record speaks for itself. They don't have to ask. People who have to ask are people whose record doesn't speak for itself but are too insecure to be content with being called "Mr." That's why some chiropractors, psychologists, etc. make a big deal out of it. Ironically, the person who most brought that point home to me was a chiropractor I met several years ago. Since I didn't know his leanings, I initially called him Doctor. He said, "please call me Gene. I'm proud that I've been able to help some people with their neck and back pain, but I'm not a doctor and I'm confident enough in what I do that I don't have to pretend to have a title that I don't actually have."
Sadly, it may not be over yet. The Dems still may try to impeach Kavanaugh. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said if the Dems seize control of the House in the midterm election and they weren't satisfied with the FBI probe (and, of course, they weren't) they would have to launch a Congressional investigation. Get out and vote people. FOX NEWS FIRST: Dems threaten more Kavanaugh probes, even if confirmed; Comey blasts FBI investigation deadline
I was not happy about how the Rs let this drag out, but in the end, they got it done. That wouldn't have happened in years past. A President Romney would have pulled the nomination. A President McCain would have pulled the nomination and apologized for putting him forward in the first place.
Kavanaugh and Merrick Garland voted together 93 percent of the time. Link. (Like I said earlier, he's not a big conservative.) Yet Garland is in the "judicial mainstream," while Kavanaugh is a right wing zealot who's such a monster that we have to resort to slander and setting aside the presumption of innocence and all common sense to stop.
Because as Deez pointed out, the narrative is now the reality. Kavenaugh is dangerous because he's dangerous. He will destroy thousands of lives because outrage. It will flip the courts to the far right for some weird reason. It's been pretty amazing to hear people talk about the "balance of the court" as if the court was ever intended to be a balance of viewpoints where every difficult question comes down to a 5-4 vote that divides the country.
I chuckle at the threats of impeaching and removing Kavanaugh from the SCOTUS after the Dems take back the House. These liberal idiots cannot even do basic math.
