Official Judge Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court

[BrometheusBob.]

Of course theyd get vote out by concervatives if they dont

Thats logic

That's not a safe assumption to make at all.

If they knew they would have voted against him, then it wouldn't have been the case that some of the republicans insisted against the vote. Think about it. Why would you not want to have a vote that you are definitely going to win?

They would have rushed to vote, submitted their NOs and moved on. There is a reason those republicans insisted on not voting and strong armed the other republicans into following along.

[Vlad_]

It's not like they had a vote and voted against Garland. That would've been above board and I'd be saying nothing about it. They refused to have any hearings or votes on him.

Elections were 7 months away. Had the Dems won, they would have put who they deemed fit, and visa-versa for the Republicans.

How is that scenario comparable in terms of timing, or dirty strategies adopted by the Left?

[1bad65]

Seeing The Big Dunn not defend brother thomas just show that his only supporting the party that throws him the bone and crumbs not his brothers

Plantation mentality.

It's common among low intellect ghetto rats.

[DoubleLeftH00k]

That's not a safe assumption to make at all.

If they knew they would have voted against him, then it wouldn't have been the case that some of the republicans insisted against the vote. Think about it. Why would you not want to have a vote that you are definitely going to win?

They would have rushed to vote, submitted their NOs and moved on. There is a reason those republicans insisted on not voting and strong armed the other republicans into following along.

considering election is coming and the sudden death of judge scalia, plus obama has already apointed 2 extreme left leaning judges why in the world after winning back the house would u let obama pick another one? To lose the 2016 election?

Yah that seems like a smart move

Yall D does not surprise me at all with y’all stupidity

0 logic on ur post

[The Big Dunn]

It's not like they had a vote and voted against Garland. That would've been above board and I'd be saying nothing about it. They refused to have any hearings or votes on him.

Exactly. If they did things right and he didn't get confirmed, so be it. To deny the vote at all was just plain dirty.

He got more of chance than Garland by actually getting a hearing. If during that hearing he is smeared and made to look like he shouldn't be on the court, oh well. The Republicans had the option of not granting him a hearing as well.

Grime and soil are not exactly the same but they are both types of dirt. That is how I see this-not exactly the same but both very dirty.

[1bad65]

The big dumb hates me

That's a badge of honor.

When racist grubers like him express hate for me, I know I'm on the right track.

[The Big Dunn]

Elections were 7 months away. Had the Dems won, they would have put who they deemed fit, and visa-versa for the Republicans.

How is that scenario comparable in terms of timing, or dirty strategies adopted by the Left?

Doesn't matter. You know that wasn't right. You know it was dirty. If you don't care, just say so. If you are not going to criticize it because ot gave the guy you voted for the chance to fill a seat on the SUpreme Court, just say so.

Just please stop trying to make the dems morally wrong for this when Republicans made it clear doing the morally correct thing is no longer a necessity in this era of hyper polarized politics.

[BrometheusBob.]

considering election is coming and the sudden death of judge scalia, plus obama has already apointed 2 extreme left leaning judges why in the world after winning back the house would u let obama pick another one? To lose the 2016 election?

Yah that seems like a smart move

Yall D does not surprise me at all with y’all stupidity

0 logic on ur post

Elections were 7 months away. Had the Dems won, they would have put who they deemed fit, and visa-versa for the Republicans.

How is that scenario comparable in terms of timing, or dirty strategies adopted by the Left?

This is interesting. One of you guys tells me that they should have not rushed the Garland voting because elections were coming up soon but the other saying we should rush this voting because elections are coming soon.

Basically, if it's a Republican nominated judge we should rush and if it's a Democratic nominated judge we should not. That's the truth of what you guys feel, stop pretending there is more depth to your view on this.

Some Republicans went out of their way to stop a supreme court nomination from even getting a hearing or a vote, that set the precedent that it is ok to play dirty as f***. You cannot sensibly complain now that the Dems are returning the favor.

[DoubleLeftH00k]

This is interesting. One of you guys tells me that they should have not rushed the Garland voting because elections were coming up soon but the other saying we should rush this voting because elections are coming soon.

Basically, if it's a Republican nominated judge we should rush and if it's a Democratic nominated judge we should not. That's the truth of what you guys feel, stop pretending there is more depth to your view on this.

Some Republicans went out of their way to stop a supreme court nomination from even getting a hearing or a vote, that set the precedent that it is ok to play dirty as f***. You cannot sensibly complain now that the Dems are returning the favor.

Well two things in mind here

Democrats cant rush the vote for garland coz they dont own the house

Republican can rush coz they own the house

Yall need to win election to push more left leaning judges anyone not stupid knows this

[DoubleLeftH00k]

This is interesting. One of you guys tells me that they should have not rushed the Garland voting because elections were coming up soon but the other saying we should rush this voting because elections are coming soon.

Basically, if it's a Republican nominated judge we should rush and if it's a Democratic nominated judge we should not. That's the truth of what you guys feel, stop pretending there is more depth to your view on this.

Some Republicans went out of their way to stop a supreme court nomination from even getting a hearing or a vote, that set the precedent that it is ok to play dirty as f***. You cannot sensibly complain now that the Dems are returning the favor.

If republicans allowed garland to have a hearing it will look worst for them coz as u know left leaning judges lies straight through the series of questions and tries to look like they going to interpret the constitution and end up changing it when theyre up there

Considering the media will have a video on how bad republicans grilled garland and so on

U know the drill

But as usual ull continue to say this is the same as the D stalling Kavanaugh, yes its the same tactic but guess what

Its all about who had the controll of the house

U think if the D had the house republicans would have the voice to stop them?

No