Good to see all of those impassioned speeches at McCain‘s funeral about partisanship, unity and Working across the aisle was just empty rhetoric. What an embarrassing display yesterday at the confirmation hearing and Trump wasn’t even in the room. There’s your swamp in full force.
Kavanaugh
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
Lead by NJ's own whiner Cory Booker who was the worst mayor Newark has ever seen and who totally sold out to big Pharma. Possibly the biggest phony in Congress. The false outrage and protests are all part of a plan to try and energize the base for the upcoming midterms. This is a very qualified judge. Not like Sotomayor whose vote in one direction is 100% sure every time.
Last edited:
Republicants despicably stole Garland’s appointment; now the democraps are getting revenge with their juvenile, collusive efforts yesterday.
So disgusting to see those who are already on record as voting no on Kavanaugh want more documents. It wouldn’t matter if they had zero documents or a 100 million documents, they’re still voting no. Shameful. Harris, her twin sister Booker, Blumenthal, etc. Just a disgrace.
Elections have consequences we were told.
So disgusting to see those who are already on record as voting no on Kavanaugh want more documents. It wouldn’t matter if they had zero documents or a 100 million documents, they’re still voting no. Shameful. Harris, her twin sister Booker, Blumenthal, etc. Just a disgrace.
Elections have consequences we were told.
As you said, the Republicans stole Garland's appointment. Unfortunately, The Dems won't be able to stop this nominee unless something dramatic happens. The real issue for me is his view on Presidential power which is the reason Trump nominated him.
However, all of you that posted to say how disgusting display at hearing, yet all of you were silent to Trump's disgusting treatment of John McCain.
Also silent on the disgusting treatment of McCain over the years by a ton of people who all of a sudden praised him last week.
McCain deserved none of it at his funeral, especially the terrible political rally it became.
Agree on the disgusting treatment of John McCain by Trump. Trump is a lowlife who never served and should have kept his mouth shut - which he can never do. I was however disappointed in how McCain's funeral turned into a Trump bashing - I don't believe John McCain would have appreciated that at all. It took the focus away from the guys own funeral. Trump should not always be the story but he somehow was the focus again at McCain's funeral which means Trump wins again in a strange way assisted by the McCain family. Just plain dumb IMO.
The McCain funeral (and the media coverage of it) was typical DC. It was the establishment coming together, flexing its muscle and ganging up on the outsider in the White House (no matter what you think of him). I thought it was a shame.
McCain and Trump were totally different men in every way but one: they shared an extreme pettiness/bitterness towards those who criticize them. While I think Sarah Palin is a joke and totally absurd, it was not a good look for McCain that he didn't invite her to the funeral. She was your running mate for crying out loud! I certainly understand him not inviting Trump, but Palin is another story.
McCain and Trump were totally different men in every way but one: they shared an extreme pettiness/bitterness towards those who criticize them. While I think Sarah Palin is a joke and totally absurd, it was not a good look for McCain that he didn't invite her to the funeral. She was your running mate for crying out loud! I certainly understand him not inviting Trump, but Palin is another story.
I feel like hidden documents should be a problem no matter if they were nominated by a republican or democrat though. That seems like a valid complaint to me.
It shouldn't matter if you know that senator will vote no, what matters is that senator will not be able to ask a probing questions on those documents which could convince 1-2 republicans to also vote no.
If you nominate a guy with 100,000 pages of documents as their professional record, you should get 100,000 pages (unless there is a valid reason not to disclose the full record) If you nominate a guy with 100,000,000 pages, you should get 100,000,000 pages. If Hillary won and nominated someone where a large part of their professional record was hidden, republicans would be saying the exact same thing democrats are saying. It is a valid point.
Both sides have always done this as a way to showboat and delay.
Both sides always claim there is not a litmus test. Until there is.
Phonies all of them, just looking for face time..
Judge Brett Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy whether President Trump has an absolute right to pardon himself as Trump has claimed.
"The question of self-pardons is something I've never analyzed. It is a question that I've not written about. It is a question therefore that is a hypothetical question that I can't begin to answer in this context as a sitting judge and as a nominee to the Supreme Court," Kavanaugh replied.
Asked if the President could pardon someone "in exchange for a promise from that person that they wouldn't testify against him," Kavanaugh again demurred.
"I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions of that sort," he told Leahy.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Judge Brett Kavanaugh directly: "Let me ask you this. Can a sitting president be required to respond to a subpoena?"
Kavanaugh responded that the question was hypothetical.
Feinstein replied: "So you can't give me an answer on whether a president has to respond to a subpoena from a court of law?"
Kavanaugh said: "My understanding is that you're asking me to give my view on a potential hypothetical, and that is something that each of the eight justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court, when they were sitting in my seat, declined to decide potential hypothetical cases."
This is the problem with Kavanaugh. He believes the President is above the law.
"The question of self-pardons is something I've never analyzed. It is a question that I've not written about. It is a question therefore that is a hypothetical question that I can't begin to answer in this context as a sitting judge and as a nominee to the Supreme Court," Kavanaugh replied.
Asked if the President could pardon someone "in exchange for a promise from that person that they wouldn't testify against him," Kavanaugh again demurred.
"I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions of that sort," he told Leahy.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Judge Brett Kavanaugh directly: "Let me ask you this. Can a sitting president be required to respond to a subpoena?"
Kavanaugh responded that the question was hypothetical.
Feinstein replied: "So you can't give me an answer on whether a president has to respond to a subpoena from a court of law?"
Kavanaugh said: "My understanding is that you're asking me to give my view on a potential hypothetical, and that is something that each of the eight justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court, when they were sitting in my seat, declined to decide potential hypothetical cases."
This is the problem with Kavanaugh. He believes the President is above the law.
He stated that he thought that the Nixon case in Watergate that Nixon be ordered to turn over the tapes pursuant to a subpoena could have been wrongly decided. He has obviously thought about this and it is an issue that should be pursued and he should answer. He is on record on his opinion. He is also on record concerning his thoughts on Presidential power. Sorry, you just don't bury your head in the sand and say that a hypo can't talk about it even though he has written things on the subject.
He's just dancing the Sotomayor. Same way she answered most of the questions she was asked in her hearings. I don't like it personally but it's been done before.
He should have said that I will look at each case, consider the merits of each argument and make a judgement based on the law. That is a smarter way not to answer the question.
He should have said that I will look at each case, consider the merits of each argument and make a judgement based on the law. That is a smarter way not to answer the question.
If he's on record already, why keep asking? Showboating, that's why.
It is not right to ask a judge how he'd rule on a hypothetical. It's a set up for the gotcha litmus test everybody supposedly abhors. I thought a justice was suppose to judge not pre-judge.
I don't like his record on the government's warrant-less record of data collection but overall he's a good, qualified candidate for the Supreme Court.
These hearings are nothing more than a useless, partisan shit-show. Another bipartisan effort. The Supreme Court is nothing but another layer of partisan politics. And to the winner goes the spoils.
They are trying to build public support opposing him.
They have a valid argument, they know republicans have the power to ignore the so they want the American people to get pissed off at republicans.
It is a political wager. There is not much democrats can do to prevent confirmation, so they are looking for political gains instead.
Yes that seems to be the Dems plan, but Kavanaugh is more than qualified for the job, so not sure why the American people would get pissed off, other than the hard liners who would have been pissed off no matter who Trump nominated. I think the phoniness and grand standing is more likely to turn people off.
I think all Americans should be pissed off that these confirmation hearings have turned into a huge waste of tax-payer money. If it's only about political positioning, are you really happy about your taxes being used for that (and it goes for both sides).
Kavenaugh has the one of (if not) the worst public polling results of any SC nominee.
The American people already don't like him.
Combine that with the fact that some of his professional record is being blocked from these hearings?
The best thing that could happen strategically for democrats is that republicans push the confirmation through quickly while the nominee is unpopular and there is an appearance that republicans are hiding something.
Sorry I do not follow poll numbers, nor did I say anything about them, said he was more than qualified, which I believe he is.
So why would someone not like him, considering he has a solid resume for a Supreme Court nominee? I would estimate 75% of people never heard of him before he was nominated. Reason I would assume low poll numbers you said has to do with the fact that Trump has low approval numbers, back to my original post that people would have been pissed off no matter who Trump nominated.
I do agree with you, if I was the Senate Republicans I would let this play out a bit and not force his nomination through too quickly.
So he is qualified by what standard? Is it because he is an Appellate Court Judge already? If so, why have hearings at all? If you are a Circuit Judge, then you are qualified. Qualification is not the issue. The President nominates with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate's role is far more broad than to see if he is qualified. Besides age and being a citizen there are no requirements to sit as a Supreme Court Justice in the Constitution.
Moreover, the Senate is entitled to know what he meant by Nixon could have been wrongly decided. Or based upon the Nixon case, isn't settled that a President is subject to subpoena? This isn't hypothetical land set up for gotcha answers. These are important issues which the nominee has already touched upon and therefore they are entitled to an explanation. Not just say sorry no hypos. That is complete BS from this nominee and in my opinion makes him unworthy to sit on the Supreme Court.
Your not sure why the American people would get pissed, and I am just explaining the context of my belief. (republicans pushing through a historically unpopular SC nominee)
I agree with you. He is qualified.
Yes, part of this is a Trump effect... however, his polling is lower than Gorsuch was at the same point in time by a fair margin.
Democrats know that and in my opinion are trying to capitalize on it.
So if it is not the Trump affect why in your estimation is he polling so low? Because it seems he is qualified, why would people oppose him? Is it because he is a conservative? Pretty sure anyone Trump appointed would be conservative. I know of nothing in his judicial record that would be really concerning.
I don’t know exactly why he polls less favorably than Gorsuch. Trumps favorability is relatively close to what it was when Gorsuch was nominated. My guess is that it has to do with Kavenaugh’s view of executive powers.
I really don't think his specific view on exec powers is it. I don't think most people in the poll even know that if you really consider the American electorate. I think it may just be that lots of folks are tired of Trump and associate his nominee with him. Just my guess.
I think it is few things and they are basically related: one is Trump and how people view him, I think 2nd has to do with the fact that Dems have come out so hard against him (more than Gorsuch) many saying they were voting NO day he was nominated, also think has been a big campaign that "he is the guy that is going to overturn Roe v Wade" or "he is the guy that will save Trump from jail in Russian probe", so basically scare tactics as these are hypothetical at this point and the fact he only has one vote on court.
And now Senator from Hawaii Hirono has also released documents marked committee confidential. This is becoming even bigger circus then I expected.
I just read the emails released from Booker. Very innocuous emails regarding legal issues. At first I thought Booker was wrong to release confidential materials. However, when I looked at these emails, I have to agree with Booker. How in the world are these documents related to national security which I thought was the standard to keep documents confidential? I may be incorrect in what may be classified but I really thought it was only for national security. None of the documents released by Booker have anything to do with National Security.
Now, the second question is were these 15 pages the only pages out of 40,000 pages that really should have not been marked confidential. thereby, it is an oversight or is this just a sample?
Now, the second question is were these 15 pages the only pages out of 40,000 pages that really should have not been marked confidential. thereby, it is an oversight or is this just a sample?
We are lucky to have such a brave and courageous Senator representing New Jersey
Rules are rules.
You are now on record as saying rules don't apply if you don't agree with them.
You're a lawyer. In a trial, if a judge tells you certain evidence is inadmissible, do you still present said evidence because you, in your own estimation, believe that evidence should be admissible?
If rules are rules and documents can only be classified for national security, the first violator of the rule is those that classified them as confidential. In court there are things that we can appeal. And if important enough, we would go to the appellate division to get it overturned. However, in this case, what is the remedy for wrongfully classified documents. Is there a way to appeal? Also, no time to appeal due to the Republican not adjourning it.
Moreover, if these documents were deemed classified and confidential as a way to obfuscate what should be open to the public, then Booker didn't violate anything did he?
Do you agree that these documents have nothing to do with national security? If you agree with that, then there is no reason why these documents are confidential and hidden from the public.
I guess turns out Booker not as big of a rebel as he was portraying himself, seems the documents had been cleared prior to his release of them this morning.
This whole process is just comical. Watched a bit last night when Sen Harris was asking questions, between several distrubances from gallery, to Harris putting on her defiant questioning act, to Kavanaugh making funny faces and playing dumb, to Republican Senator chiming in about nothing. The whole thing is just a bad show,
This whole process is just comical. Watched a bit last night when Sen Harris was asking questions, between several distrubances from gallery, to Harris putting on her defiant questioning act, to Kavanaugh making funny faces and playing dumb, to Republican Senator chiming in about nothing. The whole thing is just a bad show,
Last edited:
Swamp in full force. Really pathetic and childish behavior, which is no better than Trump’s. Are we ok with this???
Booker...lol. We can manage to be a drama queen and empty suit and be a master of both.
These documents were “committee confidential”, whatever the hell that means, not national security confidential. Then they were released before Booker’s phony, farcical release.
Dog and pony show and Booker is the lead dog.
Last edited:
I think you’re getting your daily caller taking points mixed up.
Yes, it wasn't the dossier itself but the FISA application that used the dossier that was heavily redacted.
Similar threads
