Justice Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing *DISCUSSION AND LIVE COMMENTARY*

[Calthrina950]

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch this hearing. The rambling and grandstanding is terrible.

The shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?

What?

Your party is in no position to complain about grandstanding, obstruction, and theatrics, especially where Supreme Court nominees are concerned.

I supported holding hearings for Merrick Garland. Try again

No doubt, but all the same, you’ll have to forgive me for being less than receptive to *any* Republican complaints about this sort of thing.  At the end of the day, Gorsuch is on SCOTUS and not Garland and that’s really all that matters.  So long as you guys still have your stolen majority, there are simply no words to be had on this issue, period.

Are you saying that the Senate should have confirmed Garland? I didn't support what McConnell did, but Scalia's old seat on the Supreme Court is not a stolen seat. A President's nominee doesn't get the automatic right to hold that seat, just because. It's never been that way.

[Calthrina950]

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch this hearing. The rambling and grandstanding is terrible.

The shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?

What?

Your party is in no position to complain about grandstanding, obstruction, and theatrics, especially where Supreme Court nominees are concerned.

I supported holding hearings for Merrick Garland. Try again

No doubt, but all the same, you’ll have to forgive me for being less than receptive to *any* Republican complaints about this sort of thing.  At the end of the day, Gorsuch is on SCOTUS and not Garland and that’s really all that matters.  So long as you guys still have your stolen majority, there are simply no words to be had on this issue, period.

Are you saying that the Senate should have confirmed Garland? I didn't support what McConnell did, but Scalia's old seat on the Supreme Court is not a stolen seat. A President's nominee doesn't get the automatic right to hold that seat, just because. It's never been that way.

they do get a hearing, and it has been like that way.

As I said, Garland should have gotten a hearing, but many of the Democratic base are operating on the assumption that it was his absolute right to hold that seat. That distorts the whole debate. What would you be saying if Garland had gotten a hearing and had been rejected? Would there still be the whole talk about the seat being stolen?

[Calthrina950]

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch this hearing. The rambling and grandstanding is terrible.

The shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?

What?

Your party is in no position to complain about grandstanding, obstruction, and theatrics, especially where Supreme Court nominees are concerned.

I supported holding hearings for Merrick Garland. Try again

No doubt, but all the same, you’ll have to forgive me for being less than receptive to *any* Republican complaints about this sort of thing.  At the end of the day, Gorsuch is on SCOTUS and not Garland and that’s really all that matters.  So long as you guys still have your stolen majority, there are simply no words to be had on this issue, period.

Are you saying that the Senate should have confirmed Garland? I didn't support what McConnell did, but Scalia's old seat on the Supreme Court is not a stolen seat. A President's nominee doesn't get the automatic right to hold that seat, just because. It's never been that way.

they do get a hearing, and it has been like that way.

As I said, Garland should have gotten a hearing, but many of the Democratic base are operating on the assumption that it was his absolute right to hold that seat. That distorts the whole debate. What would you be saying if Garland had gotten a hearing and had been rejected? Would there still be the whole talk about the seat being stolen?

I mean, probably not. Because thats happened before in history. McConnell did something unprecedented, and many Ds feel that the seat was stolen because he was never even allowed to have a hearing, or be introduced to the senate.

I understand why Democrats would think that, but again, there is no explicit constitutional provision mandating that the Senate has to hold hearings for a nominee. McConnell took advantage of that loophole. Again, it was a blatantly partisan decision, and it was the wrong move to take, but until our Constitution is amended to change things such as that, then that is how it is.

[Calthrina950]

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch this hearing. The rambling and grandstanding is terrible.

The shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?

What?

Your party is in no position to complain about grandstanding, obstruction, and theatrics, especially where Supreme Court nominees are concerned.

I supported holding hearings for Merrick Garland. Try again

No doubt, but all the same, you’ll have to forgive me for being less than receptive to *any* Republican complaints about this sort of thing.  At the end of the day, Gorsuch is on SCOTUS and not Garland and that’s really all that matters.  So long as you guys still have your stolen majority, there are simply no words to be had on this issue, period.

Are you saying that the Senate should have confirmed Garland? I didn't support what McConnell did, but Scalia's old seat on the Supreme Court is not a stolen seat. A President's nominee doesn't get the automatic right to hold that seat, just because. It's never been that way.

they do get a hearing, and it has been like that way.

As I said, Garland should have gotten a hearing, but many of the Democratic base are operating on the assumption that it was his absolute right to hold that seat. That distorts the whole debate. What would you be saying if Garland had gotten a hearing and had been rejected? Would there still be the whole talk about the seat being stolen?

I argued with people saying Hillary, had she won, should simply renominate Garland, because no President should be beholden to the predecessors' nominations, unless she or he wants to. Beside, Garland was clearly intended as the "most acceptable" pick in Obama's last year. Wouldn't be nominated under other circumstances.

Garland certainly was a compromise choice, and I think that he would have been a good addition to the Supreme Court. That actually makes McConnell's obstructionism even more disgraceful, in hindsight. But people still shouldn't fall into the trap of assuming that this seat was automatically for one of Obama's nominees.

[Calthrina950]

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch this hearing. The rambling and grandstanding is terrible.

The shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?

What?

Your party is in no position to complain about grandstanding, obstruction, and theatrics, especially where Supreme Court nominees are concerned.

I supported holding hearings for Merrick Garland. Try again

No doubt, but all the same, you’ll have to forgive me for being less than receptive to *any* Republican complaints about this sort of thing.  At the end of the day, Gorsuch is on SCOTUS and not Garland and that’s really all that matters.  So long as you guys still have your stolen majority, there are simply no words to be had on this issue, period.

Are you saying that the Senate should have confirmed Garland? I didn't support what McConnell did, but Scalia's old seat on the Supreme Court is not a stolen seat. A President's nominee doesn't get the automatic right to hold that seat, just because. It's never been that way.

they do get a hearing, and it has been like that way.

As I said, Garland should have gotten a hearing, but many of the Democratic base are operating on the assumption that it was his absolute right to hold that seat. That distorts the whole debate. What would you be saying if Garland had gotten a hearing and had been rejected? Would there still be the whole talk about the seat being stolen?

I argued with people saying Hillary, had she won, should simply renominate Garland, because no President should be beholden to the predecessors' nominations, unless she or he wants to. Beside, Garland was clearly intended as the "most acceptable" pick in Obama's last year. Wouldn't be nominated under other circumstances.

Garland certainly was a compromise choice, and I think that he would have been a good addition to the Supreme Court. That actually makes McConnell's obstructionism even more disgraceful, in hindsight. But people still shouldn't fall into the trap of assuming that this seat was automatically for one of Obama's nominees.

OK? So what are you saying? You're conceding that the move was partisan and wrong and that Democrats have a right to be mad, but that also Garland might not have gotten confirmed so they should shut up?

Democrats are clear on what they're upset about. Garland was denied even any hearings. Was there a guarantee he'd have been confirmed? No, but McConnell certainly feared it was a possibility, or else he wouldn't have taken the unprecedented step of denying consideration at all.

I am not interested in getting into a clash over this, and I will not drag myself through as I have with many other users here. Let me make this crystal clear: I didn't support what Mitch McConnell did in 2016, and I would have confirmed Garland if I were a Senator. But at the same time, people seem to be confusing things over this. A Garland nomination is not the same as an automatic Garland appointment. If Garland had been given a hearing, and had been duly rejected (like Robert Bork was), and if all other Obama nominees for that seat had been given hearings, and had also been duly rejected, would people still be complaining that this is a stolen seat? I would be hard pressed to say so.

[Calthrina950]

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch this hearing. The rambling and grandstanding is terrible.

The shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?

What?

Your party is in no position to complain about grandstanding, obstruction, and theatrics, especially where Supreme Court nominees are concerned.

I supported holding hearings for Merrick Garland. Try again

No doubt, but all the same, you’ll have to forgive me for being less than receptive to *any* Republican complaints about this sort of thing.  At the end of the day, Gorsuch is on SCOTUS and not Garland and that’s really all that matters.  So long as you guys still have your stolen majority, there are simply no words to be had on this issue, period.

Are you saying that the Senate should have confirmed Garland? I didn't support what McConnell did, but Scalia's old seat on the Supreme Court is not a stolen seat. A President's nominee doesn't get the automatic right to hold that seat, just because. It's never been that way.

they do get a hearing, and it has been like that way.

As I said, Garland should have gotten a hearing, but many of the Democratic base are operating on the assumption that it was his absolute right to hold that seat. That distorts the whole debate. What would you be saying if Garland had gotten a hearing and had been rejected? Would there still be the whole talk about the seat being stolen?

I argued with people saying Hillary, had she won, should simply renominate Garland, because no President should be beholden to the predecessors' nominations, unless she or he wants to. Beside, Garland was clearly intended as the "most acceptable" pick in Obama's last year. Wouldn't be nominated under other circumstances.

Garland certainly was a compromise choice, and I think that he would have been a good addition to the Supreme Court. That actually makes McConnell's obstructionism even more disgraceful, in hindsight. But people still shouldn't fall into the trap of assuming that this seat was automatically for one of Obama's nominees.

OK? So what are you saying? You're conceding that the move was partisan and wrong and that Democrats have a right to be mad, but that also Garland might not have gotten confirmed so they should shut up?

Democrats are clear on what they're upset about. Garland was denied even any hearings. Was there a guarantee he'd have been confirmed? No, but McConnell certainly feared it was a possibility, or else he wouldn't have taken the unprecedented step of denying consideration at all.

I am not interested in getting into a clash over this, and I will not drag myself through as I have with many other users here. Let me make this crystal clear: I didn't support what Mitch McConnell did in 2016, and I would have confirmed Garland if I were a Senator. But at the same time, people seem to be confusing things over this. A Garland nomination is not the same as an automatic Garland appointment. If Garland had been given a hearing, and had been duly rejected (like Robert Bork was), and if all other Obama nominees for that seat had been given hearings, and had also been duly rejected, would people still be complaining that this is a stolen seat? I would be hard pressed to say so.

This is ludicrous. Why should anybody be expected to answer your questions about something that didn't happen?

Yet another one. My ignore list continues to grow. Since you don't seem to be interested in actual debate, you are the latest addition to it.

[Calthrina950]

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch this hearing. The rambling and grandstanding is terrible.

The shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?

What?

Your party is in no position to complain about grandstanding, obstruction, and theatrics, especially where Supreme Court nominees are concerned.

I supported holding hearings for Merrick Garland. Try again

No doubt, but all the same, you’ll have to forgive me for being less than receptive to *any* Republican complaints about this sort of thing.  At the end of the day, Gorsuch is on SCOTUS and not Garland and that’s really all that matters.  So long as you guys still have your stolen majority, there are simply no words to be had on this issue, period.

Are you saying that the Senate should have confirmed Garland? I didn't support what McConnell did, but Scalia's old seat on the Supreme Court is not a stolen seat. A President's nominee doesn't get the automatic right to hold that seat, just because. It's never been that way.

I’m saying what goes around comes around.  As far as I’m concerned, the semantics of whether we call it a stolen seat (it absolutely was btw, there weren’t even hearings for Dave’s sake) are beside the point.  With all due respect, I couldn’t care less whether Republicans feel the seat was stolen or not; your party decided it wanted to roll around in the mud with the hogs and now y’all gonna keep getting pig **** on your clothes until you guys have lost your stolen Supreme Court majority (ideally by the Democrats stealing a Republican-held seat that becomes open during a Republican Presidency).  The Republicans should just spare us their hypocritical crocodile tears about “good governance” and “obstruction” because no one is interested.  

I am not a Republican; I am an independent. My avatar, profile, and comments on this board all make that clear. As I have said repeatedly, I don't think what McConnell did was right. I understand why you and Democrats are frustrated over this; I would be as well, if I were a Democrat. But at this point, I don't think that matching partisanship with partisanship does us any good.

[Calthrina950]

I am not interested in getting into a clash over this, and I will not drag myself through as I have with many other users here. Let me make this crystal clear: I didn't support what Mitch McConnell did in 2016, and I would have confirmed Garland if I were a Senator. But at the same time, people seem to be confusing things over this. A Garland nomination is not the same as an automatic Garland appointment. If Garland had been given a hearing, and had been duly rejected (like Robert Bork was), and if all other Obama nominees for that seat had been given hearings, and had also been duly rejected, would people still be complaining that this is a stolen seat? I would be hard pressed to say so.

Perhaps you might need to consult that book too. I hear it is fine reading.

If Garland had been voted down, then Obama would have nominated somebody else.

Then that somebody else should have gotten a hearing, and either been confirmed or not confirmed.

That is what happened when, for example, Bork was voted down. Then Reagan nominated someone else, Kennedy, who was confirmed.

But if the 2nd person nominated by Obama were also voted down, then Obama would have nominated somebody else.

And so on, until someone acceptable was found to be confirmed.

The problem with this is that it would have required the Republicans to find and to publicly explicate reasons for not confirming Garland, of which there were not a whole lot for them to work with.

Your insults do little to convince me of the worth of your arguments. I have little tolerance for ad hominem attacks, as I've made clear again and again. I continue to emphasize that I didn't support what McConnell did, and that I would have confirmed Garland. But partisan posters on this forum such as yourself and Figs do not understand that.

[Calthrina950]

Your insults do little to convince me of the worth of your arguments. I have little tolerance for ad hominem attacks, as I've made clear again and again. I continue to emphasize that I didn't support what McConnell did, and that I would have confirmed Garland. But partisan posters on this forum such as yourself and Figs do not understand that.

TBH you are right. My comment there was unnecessary and an expression of frustration. I apologize FWIW.

Back on your substantive point, if you are still interested in engaging on that, the appropriate procedure when a SCOTUS nominee is voted down is for the President to nominate someone else, and then they are either confirmed or not confirmed.

I also agree with you btw that Presidents do not have an absolute right to appoint SCOTUS justices. Their constitutional power is to nominate Justices for the advice and consent of the Senate. As another example of that not being understood, this thread should not be misleadingly titled - "Justice Kavanaugh" confirmation hearings. He is not a Justice unless and until he is actually confirmed, and he is not appointed - only nominated - until he is confirmed. Though of course I expect him to be confirmed.

I accept your apology, and I revoke my comment concerning you being a partisan user. I certainly agree that the process of nomination, hearings, and confirmation or rejection is the normal one, and it should be adhered to unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. The Republicans certainly do share much of the blame for what is transpiring now with this hearing. They blocked many of former President Obama's judicial nominations, and they prevented Garland from getting a hearing. But at the same time, the Democrats haven't acquitted themselves that well either, as with their behavior today. Both parties have turned the courts into a political football, something which they were never intended to be.

[Calthrina950]

Both parties have turned the courts into a political football, something which they were never intended to be.

Both parties have succumbed to the belief that all Justices can be categorized as liberal, conservative, or moderate, and that those ideologies inevitably have strong influence on the decisions that the Justices make. After all, the Justices are "only human." No human is capable of being completely objective, so they think. And the Presidents have been choosing who to appoint to the Supreme Court based on the ideologies of the appointees. They've been doing that for decades.

What we truly need for the Supreme Court to be is the most highly objective interpreters of law that can be found in the country. Yes, human beings can be objective. It requires a conscious effort to be objective, but it is possible. But I think only independents like you, Calthrina, and a very small number of Democrats and a very small number of Republicans, realize that is what we need on the Court. I don't think Judge Kavanaugh is going to fit the description.

I've moved towards that viewpoint as well. Now that I have had the chance to review some of Kavanaugh's judicial record, I don't like what I see. His views on privacy and presidential authority, in particular, disturb me, and he does have a history of being a partisan agent for Republican organizations (i.e. the Bush administration and Special Counsel Ken Starr). I certainly think that it is wrong to categorize judicial officeholders based upon ideology. Such a move detracts from the real goals which they should be striving after. Judges and justices should only be considered based upon their qualifications and their knowledge of the law.

[Calthrina950]

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch this hearing. The rambling and grandstanding is terrible.

The shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?

What?

Your party is in no position to complain about grandstanding, obstruction, and theatrics, especially where Supreme Court nominees are concerned.

I supported holding hearings for Merrick Garland. Try again

No doubt, but all the same, you’ll have to forgive me for being less than receptive to *any* Republican complaints about this sort of thing.  At the end of the day, Gorsuch is on SCOTUS and not Garland and that’s really all that matters.  So long as you guys still have your stolen majority, there are simply no words to be had on this issue, period.

Are you saying that the Senate should have confirmed Garland? I didn't support what McConnell did, but Scalia's old seat on the Supreme Court is not a stolen seat. A President's nominee doesn't get the automatic right to hold that seat, just because. It's never been that way.

I’m saying what goes around comes around.  As far as I’m concerned, the semantics of whether we call it a stolen seat (it absolutely was btw, there weren’t even hearings for Dave’s sake) are beside the point.  With all due respect, I couldn’t care less whether Republicans feel the seat was stolen or not; your party decided it wanted to roll around in the mud with the hogs and now y’all gonna keep getting pig **** on your clothes until you guys have lost your stolen Supreme Court majority (ideally by the Democrats stealing a Republican-held seat that becomes open during a Republican Presidency).  The Republicans should just spare us their hypocritical crocodile tears about “good governance” and “obstruction” because no one is interested. 

I am not a Republican; I am an independent. My avatar, profile, and comments on this board all make that clear. As I have said repeatedly, I don't think what McConnell did was right. I understand why you and Democrats are frustrated over this; I would be as well, if I were a Democrat. But at this point, I don't think that matching partisanship with partisanship does us any good.

What good does matching "doing the right thing" with partisanship do if the partisan side wont change their tactics?  It just cedes power to them.

Making non-Democratic independents feel good is not the job of the Democratic party.

See my post to Mark D. While, as I said, I understand why you and others on the left side of the spectrum are upset about what has transpired with the Supreme Court, I also think that we must avoid introducing all of the worst aspects of rank partisanship into our judicial system, beyond those which have already been posed.

[Calthrina950]

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch this hearing. The rambling and grandstanding is terrible.

The shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?

What?

Your party is in no position to complain about grandstanding, obstruction, and theatrics, especially where Supreme Court nominees are concerned.

I supported holding hearings for Merrick Garland. Try again

No doubt, but all the same, you’ll have to forgive me for being less than receptive to *any* Republican complaints about this sort of thing.  At the end of the day, Gorsuch is on SCOTUS and not Garland and that’s really all that matters.  So long as you guys still have your stolen majority, there are simply no words to be had on this issue, period.

Are you saying that the Senate should have confirmed Garland? I didn't support what McConnell did, but Scalia's old seat on the Supreme Court is not a stolen seat. A President's nominee doesn't get the automatic right to hold that seat, just because. It's never been that way.

I’m saying what goes around comes around.  As far as I’m concerned, the semantics of whether we call it a stolen seat (it absolutely was btw, there weren’t even hearings for Dave’s sake) are beside the point.  With all due respect, I couldn’t care less whether Republicans feel the seat was stolen or not; your party decided it wanted to roll around in the mud with the hogs and now y’all gonna keep getting pig **** on your clothes until you guys have lost your stolen Supreme Court majority (ideally by the Democrats stealing a Republican-held seat that becomes open during a Republican Presidency).  The Republicans should just spare us their hypocritical crocodile tears about “good governance” and “obstruction” because no one is interested. 

I am not a Republican; I am an independent. My avatar, profile, and comments on this board all make that clear. As I have said repeatedly, I don't think what McConnell did was right. I understand why you and Democrats are frustrated over this; I would be as well, if I were a Democrat. But at this point, I don't think that matching partisanship with partisanship does us any good.

What good does matching "doing the right thing" with partisanship do if the partisan side wont change their tactics?  It just cedes power to them.

Making non-Democratic independents feel good is not the job of the Democratic party.

See my post to Mark D. While, as I said, I understand why you and others on the left side of the spectrum are upset about what has transpired with the Supreme Court, I also think that we must avoid introducing all of the worst aspects of rank partisanship into our judicial system, beyond those which have already been posed.

And I think you shouldn't bring a spoon to a gunfight

What do you mean by this?

[Calthrina950]

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch this hearing. The rambling and grandstanding is terrible.

The shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?

What?

Your party is in no position to complain about grandstanding, obstruction, and theatrics, especially where Supreme Court nominees are concerned.

I supported holding hearings for Merrick Garland. Try again

No doubt, but all the same, you’ll have to forgive me for being less than receptive to *any* Republican complaints about this sort of thing.  At the end of the day, Gorsuch is on SCOTUS and not Garland and that’s really all that matters.  So long as you guys still have your stolen majority, there are simply no words to be had on this issue, period.

Are you saying that the Senate should have confirmed Garland? I didn't support what McConnell did, but Scalia's old seat on the Supreme Court is not a stolen seat. A President's nominee doesn't get the automatic right to hold that seat, just because. It's never been that way.

they do get a hearing, and it has been like that way.

As I said, Garland should have gotten a hearing, but many of the Democratic base are operating on the assumption that it was his absolute right to hold that seat. That distorts the whole debate. What would you be saying if Garland had gotten a hearing and had been rejected? Would there still be the whole talk about the seat being stolen?

I argued with people saying Hillary, had she won, should simply renominate Garland, because no President should be beholden to the predecessors' nominations, unless she or he wants to. Beside, Garland was clearly intended as the "most acceptable" pick in Obama's last year. Wouldn't be nominated under other circumstances.

Garland certainly was a compromise choice, and I think that he would have been a good addition to the Supreme Court. That actually makes McConnell's obstructionism even more disgraceful, in hindsight. But people still shouldn't fall into the trap of assuming that this seat was automatically for one of Obama's nominees.

OK? So what are you saying? You're conceding that the move was partisan and wrong and that Democrats have a right to be mad, but that also Garland might not have gotten confirmed so they should shut up?

Democrats are clear on what they're upset about. Garland was denied even any hearings. Was there a guarantee he'd have been confirmed? No, but McConnell certainly feared it was a possibility, or else he wouldn't have taken the unprecedented step of denying consideration at all.

I am not interested in getting into a clash over this, and I will not drag myself through as I have with many other users here. Let me make this crystal clear: I didn't support what Mitch McConnell did in 2016, and I would have confirmed Garland if I were a Senator. But at the same time, people seem to be confusing things over this. A Garland nomination is not the same as an automatic Garland appointment. If Garland had been given a hearing, and had been duly rejected (like Robert Bork was), and if all other Obama nominees for that seat had been given hearings, and had also been duly rejected, would people still be complaining that this is a stolen seat? I would be hard pressed to say so.

This is ludicrous. Why should anybody be expected to answer your questions about something that didn't happen?

Yet another one. My ignore list continues to grow. Since you don't seem to be interested in actual debate, you are the latest addition to it.

I’m happy to have a debate. I don’t understand what it is you’re trying to do here. Are you objecting to “stolen” because the seat didn’t “belong” to the Democrats in the first place? Surely you can understand that that’s a rhetorical reference to the unprecedented and illegitimate means by which Republicans stopped the process from even moving forward. Further, Garland was a nominee who enjoyed broad approval from Republicans as well as Democrats. He may have been voted down had he come to a vote, but it’s hardly dispositive to claim it.

Your response seemed indicative of someone who didn't want an actual debate. I've made additional points since then (as in my response to Mark D), and I've made clear that the process of nomination, hearings, and confirmation/rejection should have been followed with Garland. As for the seat, it didn't "belong" to the Democrats. No Supreme Court seat should "belong" to any political party.

[Calthrina950]

What's even the point of these hearings? We know everyone's vote is already locked in regardless.

Hopefully at a minimum for the Democrats they can finally get the media to stop lying that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are moderates.  That will probably help Murkowski, but hopefully the Susan Collins' lying to the people of Maine will end her dishonest political career.

What would your definition of moderate be? Someone who votes with the Democrats on everything?

Collins and Murkowski are certainly far more moderate than most of the Republicans the media passes off as "moderate" like Comstock, Paulsen, McSally, Coffman, Valadao, etc. who vote with Trump 97-99% of the time. Collins is in the high 70s and Murkowski is in the low 80s. Which is way too high in my opinion, but what do you expect? They aren't Democrats.

What would be your definition for a true moderate Republican? Someone who votes around 50-60% of the time with the Trump Administration? That's about where Manchin, Donnelly, Jones, and Heitkamp are.

[Calthrina950]

Hirono's rambling "questioning" (which included several minutes devoted towards defending a race-based voting plan in Hawaii that was ruled unconstitutional in 2000) shows why she was one of the least effective state a.g's in the last 30 or so years. Complete idiot

Hirono is one of the most ignorant members of the Senate, of either party. I've read a number of unflattering articles about her. It's such a shame that she will sail to reelection (quite possibly with over 70% of the vote).

[Calthrina950]

watching this just proves booker and harris are not ready. sht is sad

Booker and Harris are, for lack of a better phrase, trying to become "the next Obama". That is, they are both relatively young, relatively inexperienced Senators, who have only been in the Senate for comparatively brief periods of time (Booker ~4 years, Harris just over a year and a half), and who both have been "hailed" by many on the left side of the political spectrum for their perceived charisma and oratory skill. Both are using the hearings as an opportunity to build their credibility with the Democratic base and to produce material which they can use in their upcoming presidential campaigns. Both are transparently ambitious. However, neither of them, in my opinion, are as intelligent or inspiring as Obama is, and my regard for them is a lot lower than for him.

[Calthrina950]

watching this just proves booker and harris are not ready. sht is sad

Booker and Harris are, for lack of a better phrase, trying to become "the next Obama". That is, they are both relatively young, relatively inexperienced Senators, who have only been in the Senate for comparatively brief periods of time (Booker ~4 years, Harris just over a year and a half), and who both have been "hailed" by many on the left side of the political spectrum for their perceived charisma and oratory skill. Both are using the hearings as an opportunity to build their credibility with the Democratic base and to produce material which they can use in their upcoming presidential campaigns. Both are transparently ambitious. However, neither of them, in my opinion, are as intelligent or inspiring as Obama is, and my regard for them is a lot lower than for him.

Agree with everything. Never knew who Harris was until this year. I dont think they are that charismatic and their oratory skills aren't that special. If they were white, their perception would be normalized.



Intelligence is a stretch. But I agree Obama is far more inspiring than them. Booker and Harris are far closer to corporate ties than Obama and that's the main issue

Intelligence is more of a subjective, rather than an objective measure, so I will concede that. But otherwise, you are right about the corporate ties of the latter two, especially those of Booker. I've heard that he has ties with some pharmaceutical companies. Both come off to me as generic neoliberal Democrats, in the mold of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry-that is, of every Democratic nominee in the last quarter century. Even though they have embraced some parts of the progressive agenda (i.e. on social issues and on healthcare), they are still, for the most part, bland establishment politicians with little of an inspiring agenda.

If a realignment occurs, I would much rather that it be with some other politician more in the Bernie Sanders mold (with some modifications), rather than with either of these two. And if Booker or Harris were to become the Democratic nominee in 2020, they would not receive my vote.

[Calthrina950]

Regardless of what he thinks, Cory Booker’s desperate grab for attention won’t help his 2020 campaign.

This much is true. Booker, Harris, Warren, and Gillibrand are among the Democrats who I think would lose to Trump in 2020 if they were nominated.

[Calthrina950]

I am Spartacus moment lol

I'm not meaning to pick on you, but this is rather aimed at everybody focusing on Booker's and Harris's grandstanding (even if they're at least partially right), Hirano being a dim bulb, etc.

Is THIS really your take away from these hearings? Why is it so telling the same people running on about these matters are the same ones who don't utter a word about what Kavanaugh actually is saying, or the highly concerning positions being uncovered?

They’re working so hard to make these hearings all about them so I’m just giving them the attention they so desperately want.

That is the lamest act of dodging a question I've seen since---well, since this afternoon's hearing to be honest. But still weak deflection.

Seriously though, what do you expect? Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but deflections and non committal answers.

So you're actively ignoring Kavanaugh's answers and the evidence revealed about extreme positions he's adopted, and instead enjoying what moments of "herp derp, Hirano's dum!" you can find. Thanks for clarifying.

It still befuddles me as to why you identify as a Republican on here. I am not in favor of Kavanaugh's nomination, but your responses concerning it fit in with your posts on other issues. They are virtually indistinguishable from the posts of left-leaning users on this forum.

[Calthrina950]

Booker just touting his presidential campaign right now, he's given up all appearance of taking his hearing seriously.

Booker disgraced himself at the hearing today. The memos that he demanded turned out to contain little of substance (that is, they didn't have what the Democrats wanted them to have). Booker's behavior has further reduced my already low opinion of him.

[Calthrina950]

Booker just touting his presidential campaign right now, he's given up all appearance of taking his hearing seriously.

Booker disgraced himself at the hearing today. The memos that he demanded turned out to contain little of substance (that is, they didn't have what the Democrats wanted them to have). Booker's behavior has further reduced my already low opinion of him.

He was doing this for the sake of the public. You don't believe in transparency? Really? You prefer to continue the millenia old tradition of high level and high ranking corruption instead? In what universe exactly could transparency be something negative?

There's a difference between transparency and showboating. And Booker was engaging in the latter today. He was doing this to produce material and credibility for his upcoming presidential campaign. Harris was doing the same. These are ambitious, scheming politicians, and the hearing gave them an opportunity to flaunt themselves to their base.

[Calthrina950]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/406041-collins-calls-crowdfunding-to-get-her-to-oppose-kavanaugh-a-bribe

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It should not be a secret at this point that Collins will vote for Kavanaugh. I read an article somewhere which stated that she has never voted against any Supreme Court nominee during her 21 years in the Senate.

[Calthrina950]

What do you guys think the odds are that Kavanaugh even makes it to the hearings on Thursday? Or do y'all think that he will have been withdrawn by then?

At this point, I do not believe that Kavanaugh will be confirmed. If nothing else convinces people like Collins, Murkowski, and Flake, than this new allegation may. I think it's very likely that Trump may withdraw the nomination if things continue to build. I wouldn't be surprised if McConnell, even now (in spite of his comments from a few days ago at that conference), is calling up the White House and attempting to persuade him that way.

[Calthrina950]

Greetings lovely citizens of Atlas,

I am here today to offer a solution to this polarizing, tough issue of Kavanaugh's confirmation. In order to correct Kavanaugh's wrongs to various women, as well as the GOP's stealing of Garland's seat, he must be raped by the daughter of Merrick Garland until he gets her pregnant. The offspring of Kavanaugh and Garland's daughter's baby will become the next Supreme Court justice. This is an effective solution because it is a compromise between Garland - dems preferred choice - and Kavanaugh, who is the repubs preferred choice.

I believe this solution is Fair™, Centrist™, Moderate™, Reasonable™, and most likely Wulfric Approved™. I am trying to get the Calthrina Certification™ as we speak.

I don't know why you've gotten to the point of trivializing my viewpoints. But at this point, my opinion of many of the users on this board is low, and I've come to expect these sort of things. Nor am I surprised that you would be the one saying something like this.

[Calthrina950]

Statement by McConnell on the Senate Floor at approx. 3:07 ET today:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, this makes me reconsider my statement from earlier. It looks like the Ford hearing, and this new allegation, may make no difference as to the final outcome. If Kavanaugh is still confirmed, however, I think that it will hurt Republicans even more in many of the swing districts that they need to keep control of the House.