From Russia With Love

*GOBEARGO* said:
Follow the bouncing magoo. Who corroborated the alleged assault? The alleged victim?

Let me ask a honest question...If you were on a jury would you convict this man based on the evidence before you?...never mind.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you an honest question - would you vote to confirm the nomination of a man who lied in his testimony at his confirmation hearing?
 
Lion Eyes said:
I was talking about the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee...fuckin Magooooooooo

The Republicans on the judiciary committee, while disagreeing with Sotomayer & Kagen never tried to destroy their reputations or drag them through the gutter.
Those Republicans then voted to confirm both of them.
Click to expand...

For the Sotomayor confirmation, the Committee vote was 13-6. There were 7 Republicans were on the committee then.

For the Kagan nomination, the only Republican Committee member to vote in favor of her nomination was Lindsey Graham.
 
espola said:
Let me ask you an honest question - would you vote to confirm the nomination of a man who lied in his testimony at his confirmation hearing?
Click to expand...

JC lied? What about drinking? Yearbook quotes? Drank in college? This is where were at defending allegations when your 16 years old? 18 years old? 20 years old?...with nothing but hearsay and innuendos? Guilty until proven innocent? 30+ years ago, let that sink in. 6 FBI background checks, stellar record as a judge not good enough?...please. ANY nominee would have been crucified by these zealots. Obstruct, delay is the game here.

This is disgusting as it gets for politics and you slop it up as fact. You would be much more believable if you'd at least admit this a sham, but of course that would never happen. All because your crystal ball says this man will 'personally' overturn RvW and this lone man will set back our nation 100 years. Don't you see just how absurd that is?...that was rhetorical.
 
*GOBEARGO* said:
JC lied? What about drinking? Yearbook quotes? Drank in college? This is where were at defending allegations when your 16 years old? 18 years old? 20 years old?...with nothing but hearsay and innuendos? Guilty until proven innocent? 30+ years ago, let that sink in. 6 FBI background checks, stellar record as a judge not good enough?...please. ANY nominee would have been crucified by these zealots. Obstruct, delay is the game here.

This is disgusting as it gets for politics and you slop it up as fact. You would be much more believable if you'd at least admit this a sham, but of course that would never happen. All because your crystal ball says this man will 'personally' overturn RvW and this lone man will set back our nation 100 years. Don't you see just how absurd that is?...that was rhetorical.
Click to expand...

Any nominee? What about Gorsuch?
 
espola said:
Any nominee? What about Gorsuch?
Click to expand...
If the dems controlled the house and senate when Garland was nominated, he'd be a supreme right now.
The left has used the courts, and will continue if allowed, to use them to legislate away political opposition.
Thank God (and Trump) the stopper is in the house.
 
Ricky Fandango said:
If the dems controlled the house and senate when Garland was nominated, he'd be a supreme right now.
The left has used the courts, and will continue if allowed, to use them to legislate away political opposition.
Thank God (and Trump) the stopper is in the house.
Click to expand...

The House has nothing to say in Supreme Court nominations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top