What kind of scumbag defends this process?
“What rules were "flouted" (and how) and what on earth are you talking about with "punitive measures"? Again, nonsense. “
Booker explicitly stated that he was willing to get expelled from the Senate by releasing emails the committee had deemed classified (and did so allegedly without knowledge that those emails had been declassified a few hours earlier). Most rational, objective people would consider that flouting the rules of the Senate. Then again, maybe you stood up and announced “I am Spartacus” too when he tried to pull off that stunt. He should be removed from the Judicial Committee and every Senator who supported flouting the Senate rules should be censured.
“You're wrong on the numbers, and you clearly don't know the history behind those nominations. For starters, maybe check out who recommended Ginsburg to Bill Clinton and why. Hint: he was a Republican and it was because she was viewed as a moderate that Republicans would be fine with.”
The votes were Ginsburg 96-3 and Scalia 98-0. What’s the difference? The point is these candidates were overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate. Even the recent confirmation hearings of leftists Kagan (63-37) and Sotomayor (68-31) were fairer and less political. If their hearings were conducted like Kavanaugh’s you would would been screeching about them and insulting other posters as usual.
“No he doesn't and we don't know that this accusation is ‘baseless.’ Nor is it ‘obscure’ (do you even know what that word means?). In fact, so far it seems pretty credible and certainly worthy of vetting. What you posted is just stupid and completely ignorant of the process, what purpose it serves, and how it works. He doesn't have any ‘rights’ here. He could be voted down because 51 Senators think we've got enough Irish Catholics on the court if they felt like it. May not be cool and may even be bigotry that backfires politically, but within the Senate's discretion. You clearly know nothing if you think he has some kind of right to a vote without a sexual assault accuser being heard.”
Yes, he most certainly does have the right to fight personal, spurious, venomous attacks like the one currently being staged against him. Just because he is being considered for a seat on the highest court in the land doesn’t mean he relinquished his right to be treated with respect and decency (a concept which may well be foreign to you). This Jackie Coakley-esque claim attacking his character and publicly exposing himself, his wife and his daughters to an unproven, vague accusation is yet one more shameful, desperate act committed by your party.
“LOL, more histrionic bitch rant from HO Cakes. Yeah, I"m sure women showing up to vote in November midterms are just APPALLED!!! at how unfairly this kind and decent man has been treated about his alleged rape attempt.”
Since you failed to learn your lesson in 2016, you will learn again not all women feel that all unfounded, unprovable accusations of sexual assault against men are valid claims. They know, as we experienced at UVA, that there are many reasons why false accusations occur. After witnessing the histrionics that took place in the hearings by Democrat Senators and staged spectators, it’s not hard to see the motivation behind this one.
[Post edited by Hoos Operator at 09/19/2018 1:26PM]
|
(
In response to this post by WahooRQ)
Posted: 09/19/2018 at 12:49PM