you "wish he wouldn't do those things" and then excuse them. Every. Damn. Time.

and then when the dems do something one tenth as bad, you're making false equivalencies and saying "WHY WON'T SOMEONE DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS"

It's tiresome, it's illogical, nobody here is dumb enough to fall for it, and frankly if being called out for it bothers you THAT MUCH then I'd recommend giving up because I for one am not going to put up with the bull****.

Cory Booker now admits it

he says he was refering to breaking the rules the day before

I posted the CNBC article not fox or breitbart

they arent lying now, they are now telling the truth

i didnt say anything shouild be done about corey bookers sham

i just wanted to point it out

to what purpose?

I mean, we all know, but I want to hear you say it.

would you be OK with Democrats starting a hearing the morning after dumping about a hundred thousand pages of documents onto the record, that Republicans had no access to, overnight the night before the hearing?

why didn't you "point that out"? That's a much bigger deal, right? You clowns were up in arms about that with the health care bill, right? Made catch phrases out of it and everything!

Is it perhaps because you're not interested at all in any sort of evaluation of the process?

to point out that the hearing is a waste of time if people arent going to actually ask the judge questions

and to point out that corey booker is running for president during the hearing

i didnt even complain about their outbursts on day 1 because i dont understand why the documents were released so late at all

i complained about the public outbursts during the first day. but not the democrats acting out of order because i understood why they did

do you agree its all a farce anyway

he's going to get 56 votes (or 55 if mccains replacement cant vote yet)

all 51 repubs and 5 dems

its a sad state of times

eyebooger pointed out that i was inaccurate in the sotomeyer and kagan votes. he is correct. they got about 26% of the republican votes which is better than the dems will vote here but still pathetic

How many women involved themselves in this conversation? How many men refused to listen or respond to them?

do you think that perhaps the reason dems are not willing to vote for this has, you know, anything to do with the fact that they have zero input into a nominee, have been completely shut out of ANY legislative processes, and had the entire legislative process subverted by Republican leadership for the past half decade or so?

And no, it hasn't always been this way.

You seem to be saying "why don't the Democrats just go along and support the guy" with the complaint about voting percentages.

Given all of that they've been subjected to (and again, THIS IS NEW, legislatively speaking), and given that you agree this is a sham of a hearing in the first place -- why on earth should they?

the purpose of the hearing is to see if the candidate is qualified.

blaming this all on the Rs is hilarious. it started with bork.

but even so it's never been this bad

if its cause they are butthurt about garland, which wasnt heard because of a Schumer rule, then it sucks

but at least ask him qualification questions

some of the harris questioning was about try8ing to get him to say he would recuse himself in any mueller issues. Which at least has a purpose.

but corey booker thing was just a sham

did you read what was in the profiling secret document?

it had the headline profiling, and Kavanaugh clearly says in it that we should not profile

What is the cost?

Mets, given the purpose of the hearing, how concerned are you that every Republican opened by essentially welcoming Kav to SCOTUS before asking any questions?

I'm getting the impression that you think the Senate is obligated to confirm nominees as long as they are (minimally?) "qualified", without regard for other political/ideological considerations.

I'm not really sure why you think Senators have such an obligation to forego other considerations in their role in confirming nominees.

he was on the list of judges so they have been researched

i do wish people didnt have their minds made up

but it was the same with the dems ad sotomeyer and kagan

so im as concerned as i was then

and thats also not true

susan collins and the senator from Maine have already met with him extensively, as have some dems

why do you think someone like Lindsey Graham voted for both Kagan and Sotomeyer when he disagrees with every view they have?


because the president gets to pick his judges, and the senate gets to "advise and consent" and vet

thats how its been forever until recently

LOL Bork. Not only was Bork terrible, but the nominee after him was confirmed 97-0. So the Bork nomination didn't start this trend.

At least say it started with Alito; you could at least make a reasonable case for that.

Also what is this "Schumer rule"?

Except they aren’t getting to advise in any informed manner, which is the whole point.

And yes that is new with this current batch of Republicans in charge.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I agree with you that Senators should be allowed to either consent or withhold consent to a nominee on the basis of some minimum standard of qualification, if they choose to do so. If you want to know what criteria Graham used in evaluating those nominees you'd have to ask him, I don't know. But if he said that he would vote to confirm any nominee who met some minimum standard I have no problem with that.

Instead, I'm asking you why you think Senators are obligated to adopt that approach.

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

advise and consent

"While several framers of the U.S. Constitution, such as the Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, believed that the required role of the Senate is to advise the President after the nomination has been made by the President,[1][2] Roger Sherman believed that advice before nomination could still be helpful.[3] President George Washington took the position that pre-nomination advice was allowable but not mandatory.[4] The notion that pre-nomination advice is optional has developed into the unification of the "advice" portion of the power with the "consent" portion, although several Presidents have consulted informally with Senators over nominations and treaties."


The president chooses the judge, the senate can advise and consent.

it's transformed into this circus of asking judges hypotheticals, and RGB was awesome when she declined but thats what they still do today.

but the president gets to choose his judges. always has.

bork was declined. miers probably would not have been confirmed so she backed out

but neither of these were based on their decisions made or how they would hypothetically rule in a case

It’s not the few women in Pooh’s obligation to participate itt to better the balance.

It’s not necessarily surprising that people might feel hesitant to enter a thread they feel is comprised people who are different to them (the pub originated because people felt intimidated by the community thread, ffs)

Rather than fight xn’s points, better to recognise that the thread participants are a narrow slice of the world, recognise the limitations that result, and recognise when we spout off on situations that don’t really impact us as strongly as others.

Why litigate this? Just listen and try to understand better.

because it is the president's job to pick his judges, and the senates job to vet them imo

It sounds like you're not clear on the meaning of the word "consent" in the text you quoted. The entire paragraph about the advisory role is irrelevant to the question.

edit: re: the above post, yes the point I'm getting around to making here is that it's just your opinion. Which is fine, you can have that opinion, but the senate is not obligated to agree with you :P Hence "consent", and not just "advise". It's a pretty important part of balancing powers between branches of government.

Seriously?