ND - Cramer +12 (FOX) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 11, 2024, 09:21:40 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2018 Senatorial Election Polls
  ND - Cramer +12 (FOX) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: ND - Cramer +12 (FOX)  (Read 11524 times)
pppolitics
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,851


« on: October 03, 2018, 06:32:30 PM »

Mostly great news. This keeps Dems one more seat away from a majority, which they certainly don't deserve with their despicable handling of the Kavanaugh situation. However, I say only 'mostly' great because this means that there will be even less ideological diversity among the Democratic senators, as a leading red-state Democrat is knocked off.

Still, on the whole, good news.

With all due respect, this kind of criticism regarding the courts is meaningless coming from Republicans. You guys have made it abundantly clear that you do not accept that Democrats have every right to pick judges when in power, just like Republicans do, and that apparently the federal judiciary is the sole property of the Republican Party, so why should Democrats do anything but impede your party's attempts to stack it?

This is what happens when you stand by as your party engages in scumbag partisan power plays. You ruin the idea of bipartisanship and make everything a "win-at-all-costs" battle. And you turn people like me, who just wanted each party to accept that if their opponents control the White House, they get to pick federal judges within reason, into jaded political activists who now want their party to pack the courts in a long-shot effort to teach the opposition that the world doesn't revolve around them.

I actually wholly agree with you on this issue. The current (and relatively newfound) partisan rancor surrounding Supreme Court nominations is frankly disgusting, and BOTH sides  of the senate refuse to act as a mature, unified body determined to assess the qualifications of nominees.

That being said, this case with Kavanaugh is particularly sinister, as it not only involves one side trying to delay his confirmation but also involves, quite literally, the ruining of his life and that of his family with no substantiated evidence.

He lied under oath about Rimarez’s story.

He said that that he didn’t hear about it until The New Yorker publish it, when he was already maneuvering behind the scene to to undercut the story.

Are you saying that you would support someone that lied under oath to be on the Supreme Court?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.