President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh

[/dev/null]

7 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Even if the Senate flips in 2018 there is a good chance of flipping back over the next several years.  SC justices are for a much longer haul.  I still think that the underhanded measures taken during the nomination process have as much chance to motivate Republicans as having Kavanaugh on the bench energizing Democrats.

 

The House and Senate will inevitably flip at some point and flip back. 

 

What concerns me is talk from the Democrats that if they take control they will start impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh.  Which will set the precedent to remove Supreme Court Justices whenever the political winds shift

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

The House and Senate will inevitably flip at some point and flip back. 

 

What concerns me is talk from the Democrats that if they take control they will start impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh.  Which will set the precedent to remove Supreme Court Justices whenever the political winds shift

 

They won't get near the 2/3 Senate votes to impeach him.

[Koko78]

8 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

The House and Senate will inevitably flip at some point and flip back. 

 

What concerns me is talk from the Democrats that if they take control they will start impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh.  Which will set the precedent to remove Supreme Court Justices whenever the political winds shift

 

Let the House Democrats impeach whomever they want. The Democrats will never get enough Senate votes to remove either Kavanaugh or Trump. The only thing they will accomplish is to look even more loony and irrational.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[/dev/null]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

They won't get near the 2/3 Senate votes to impeach him.

 

Not this time, but they will set the precedent for future Congress' that may want to replace burdensome Supreme Court Justices

[DC Tom]

23 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

This gives new meaning to the term ❄️
 

Mark Zuckerberg held a meeting to try and calm Facebook employee outrage after an exec attended the Kavanaugh hearing (FB)
 

Facebook has been battling an employee revolt after a senior exec, Joel Kaplan, attended the Brett Kavanaugh Senate hearing in support of the US Supreme Court nominee.
On Friday, the company held an internal "town hall" meeting with employees to discuss the issue, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg in attendance. 
Zuckerberg reportedly talked about the importance of supporting diverse viewpoints at Facebook.
Facebook has held a company "town hall" meeting with employees to try and quell outrage after a senior executive attended the recent Senate hearing of US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg were both in attendance. 

 

And it didn't work.  Facebook employees still want him gone.

[IDBillzFan]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

If Kavanaugh becomes the cause of flipping the Senate next month , would he still be worth gridlock with E.O. rest of way  ?

 

Put another way, if Kavanaugh becomes the cause for the GOP keeping the senate, would he still have been worth the disgusting scorched earth bloodbath he got from the Dems?

Edited October 6, 2018 by LABillzFan

[Uncle Joe]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

They won't get near the 2/3 Senate votes to impeach him.

This and the Electoral College? What were the Founder's thinking? /sarcasm

[RochesterRob]

14 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

The House and Senate will inevitably flip at some point and flip back. 

 

What concerns me is talk from the Democrats that if they take control they will start impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh.  Which will set the precedent to remove Supreme Court Justices whenever the political winds shift

  Excuse my ignorance on this but can they do that?  Would not the burden of proof need to be higher than hearsay?  If politicians and justices could be removed based on old dirt there would probably be just a tiny handful left standing at the end.

[IDBillzFan]

7 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

Not this time, but they will set the precedent for future Congress' that may want to replace burdensome Supreme Court Justices

 

The rallying cry of the left has been to take power and then expand SCOTUS to 11 seats.

[Alaska Darin]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  Excuse my ignorance on this but can they do that?  Would not the burden of proof need to be higher than hearsay?  If politicians and justices could be removed based on old dirt there would probably be just a tiny handful left standing at the end.

They’re just throwing **** at the wall to try to keep any hope of flipping Congress.  Make no mistake, the Dems KNOW they !@#$ed this up royally.  They had a plan and thought with enough noise the Republicans would cave, because that’s what they do.  Perhaps the greatest effect Trump has had on the Republicans is his willingness to fight to the death over pretty much everything.  They’re following his lead.

[Bray Wyatt]

3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

The rallying cry of the left has been to take power and then expand SCOTUS to 11 seats.

 

Except that was already tried by FDR and shot down 

 

edit: I believe he tried more than 11 I think 15?

Edited October 6, 2018 by Bray Wyatt

[ALF]

8 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Put another way, if Kavanaugh becomes the cause for the GOP keeping the senate, would he still have been worth the disgusting scorched earth bloodbath he got from the Dems?

 

I would think nominating a less controversial conservative would have been safer , we'll see in Nov.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, ALF said:

 

I would think nominating a less controversial conservative would have been safer , we'll see in Nov.

 

LESS controversial!? The guy is vanilla GOPe. There isn't a LESS controversial judge to be had.  

Any "controversy" you may feel is attached was ginned up by the Democrats.  Period. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Warning shot by Graham to John Kerry and his buds?

[IDBillzFan]

4 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

I would think nominating a less controversial conservative would have been safer , we'll see in Nov.

 

You didn't answer the question. If the right holds the Senate in November, was the scorched-earth last-minute destruction of Kavanaugh worth it, or would you look back and suggest a better approach?

 

To counter your next question, let me say what I've said quite a bit: I don't care much at all for Trump, but I'll take him if all he does is seat Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

 

Even if the GOP loses the Senate next month.

 

[/dev/null]

15 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Excuse my ignorance on this but can they do that?  Would not the burden of proof need to be higher than hearsay?  If politicians and justices could be removed based on old dirt there would probably be just a tiny handful left standing at the end.

 

Let me stop you right there sir.  You are trying to apply a logical and rational argument.

 

You must first learn to think and argue like a Progressive Fascist

 

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Warning shot by Graham to John Kerry and his buds?

Way too much to ask but it would be awesome to see Kerry in bracelets.

[Dr. Who]

8 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

I would think nominating a less controversial conservative would have been safer , we'll see in Nov.

Kavanaugh is a Bush Republican with an excellent judicial record. He is a mainstream conservative. The only thing controversial about him was what arose as a result of an initially anonymous and perduring unsubstantiated claim of sexual misconduct that was on noone's radar screen as the fella had already passed six FBI background checks. If you mean to imply that Kavanaugh should have been withdrawn once the allegations and Democratic smear tactics ramped up, such a move would only embolden those engaged in such intemperate and scurrilous political tactics to continue doing so to any GOP nominee.