riflebear said:

---

You were saying Jinx?

---

I don't have to defend any news outlets for covering silly or irrelevant things like FB posts by classmates of Blasey or Kavanaugh. I already stated that.

YOU were the one who picked up the now debunked Fox News tactic of turning Mollie Tibbetts' murder into a circus to deflect attention from Manafort's convictions. Remember THAT sorry little episode? And since then, Mueller has got Manafort by the extreme short hairs.

We should see some interesting developments in the coming weeks. I'll look for honest commentary for them from you, right?

Jinx 2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

You were saying Jinx?

---

I don't have to defend any news outlets for covering silly or irrelevant things like FB posts by classmates of Blasey or Kavanaugh. I already stated that.

YOU were the one who picked up the now debunked Fox News tactic of turning Mollie Tibbetts' murder into a circus to deflect attention from Manafort's convictions. Remember THAT sorry little episode? And since then, Mueller has got Manafort by the extreme short hairs.

We should see some interesting developments in the coming weeks. I'll look for honest commentary for them from you, right?

---

Debunked? An innocent girl being killed by an illegal alien, are you saying this didn't happen? It was a front page story for weeks on every major media site but once they find the actual killer and it's an illegal everyone is just supposed to stop covering it? WOW, the liberal mind strikes again since it was already proven Fox covered Manafort just as much if not more than the other outlets on TV and their website.

Nice try to deflect though. Back to Kavanaugh...

BREAKING: FBI Will NOT Launch Criminal Probe Into Kavanaugh Allegations

Jinx 2 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

It could easily be faked, but this seems like the kind of thing some law enforcement officers should check into and figure out.

---

Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination

---

Wow. That was predictable.

I don't like or dislike Kavanaugh, but man the left is just making up stuff left and right.

She never told anybody............but everybody knew.

It didn't happen during school session..........but we all talked about it at school.

She is just making **** up.

My understanding is that any FBI investigation of Kavanaugh would not be a criminal investigation. It would just be a more thorough background investigation with the information provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-letter-fbi/index.html

In a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and obtained by CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys argue that "a full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions."
[url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-attorneys-letter-grassley/index.html][/url]
Read: Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys' letter requesting FBI investigation
The letter from Ford's lawyers notes that despite receiving a "stunning amount of support from her community," Ford has also "been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats" and has been forced to leave her home.

"We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security," the letter from Ford's lawyers said.

Jinx 2 said:

---

My understanding is that any FBI investigation of Kavanaugh would not be a criminal investigation. It would just be a more thorough background investigation with the information provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-letter-fbi/index.html

In a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and obtained by CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys argue that "a full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions."
[url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-attorneys-letter-grassley/index.html][/url]
Read: Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys' letter requesting FBI investigation
The letter from Ford's lawyers notes that despite receiving a "stunning amount of support from her community," Ford has also "been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats" and has been forced to leave her home.

"We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security," the letter from Ford's lawyers said.

---

I don't think the article you posted supports your assertion. It's just a request....from an attorney...

Edmond Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

My understanding is that any FBI investigation of Kavanaugh would not be a criminal investigation. It would just be a more thorough background investigation with the information provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-letter-fbi/index.html

In a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and obtained by CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys argue that "a full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions."
[url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-attorneys-letter-grassley/index.html][/url]
Read: Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys' letter requesting FBI investigation
The letter from Ford's lawyers notes that despite receiving a "stunning amount of support from her community," Ford has also "been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats" and has been forced to leave her home.

"We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security," the letter from Ford's lawyers said.

---

I don't think the article you posted supports your assertion. It's just a request....from an attorney...

---

This one does. Trump will not order the investigation, but the ball is in his court.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/can-fbi-investigate-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh-n911036

In fact, the FBI could certainly investigate Ford's claim, but only if the White House asks the bureau to do so. She has no authority to request it. Neither does the Senate.

When the FBI conducts a background investigation of a presidential nominee, it vacuums up all kinds of information about the nominee, including claims from people interviewed by agents, and dumps it into the file. It does not, however, investigate whether or not derogatory information is true unless it's asked to follow up by the White House. Several current and former Justice Department and FBI officials say this has always been the practice, and there is actually a longstanding formal memorandum of understanding between DOJ and the White House that specifies these limits.

The Senate cannot ask the FBI to investigate Ford's allegations that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a high school party more than 30 years ago, because Kavanaugh is the president's nominee, not the Senate's.

Here's another way to think about it. In doing background investigations, the FBI is acting as an agent of the White House. That's a separate role from its responsibility to investigate crimes. The Senate can always ask the FBI to investigate a potential crime that it becomes aware of, but it can't direct the FBI to investigate the background of a presidential nominee.

And in this case, even assuming Ford's allegation to be true, there's no suggestion of a federal crime, quite apart from the statute of limitations issue. So the FBI has no independent authority to open a criminal investigation. Its only role here would be to re-open the Kavanaugh background investigation.

Additionally, some in the FBI, says a source familiar with their thinking, are annoyed by President Trump's statements that the FBI doesn't do this or this "is not really their thing" when there are FBI agents who do nothing but interview sex crime victims.

Video of former Asst Director of FBI says there is now way to prove this on either side. Says investigation could be done in 2-3 days since there are only 3-5 people to interview.

I say do it and call their bluff.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5837229816001/?#sp=show-clips

Jinx 2 said:

---

But because of what the Republicans did re: Merrick Garland and the way they've behaved with this nomination, SCOTUS has less legitimacy. And that's solely on Republicans.

---

LOL

As everyone said, it was never about justice for Mrs. Ford. They don't care about her, they just want to use her story to win voters and stop Kavanaugh (or delay him). They knew this would never work since they sat on it for 2-3 months. As long as they got a week's worth of liberal media coverage to inspire their base and try to make the @gop seem sexist and anti #metoo they win. CNN employee is out there lying saying Grassley is bullying her demanding she comes to testify which is 100% false when he's offered to fly out to their place of choosing.

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

She can't and won't testify in public or private because she'd perjure herself. She knows it as does her attorney, which is the wise choice for her.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

Garland didn't get a confirmation hearing.

Republicans didn't even meet with him.

McConnell stonewalled him.

You think Kavanaugh's being shabbily treated? That pales compared with the treatment Garland got.

riflebear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

You were saying Jinx?

---

I don't have to defend any news outlets for covering silly or irrelevant things like FB posts by classmates of Blasey or Kavanaugh. I already stated that.

YOU were the one who picked up the now debunked Fox News tactic of turning Mollie Tibbetts' murder into a circus to deflect attention from Manafort's convictions. Remember THAT sorry little episode? And since then, Mueller has got Manafort by the extreme short hairs.

We should see some interesting developments in the coming weeks. I'll look for honest commentary for them from you, right?

---

Debunked? An innocent girl being killed by an illegal alien, are you saying this didn't happen? It was a front page story for weeks on every major media site but once they find the actual killer and it's an illegal everyone is just supposed to stop covering it? WOW, the liberal mind strikes again since it was already proven Fox covered Manafort just as much if not more than the other outlets on TV and their website.

Nice try to deflect though. Back to Kavanaugh...

---

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/mollie-tibbetts-celia-barquin-murders-reactions.html

Several weeks after Tibbetts' death, Iowa has been shaken by another brutal murder. The victim this time was Celia Barquin Arozamena, a 22-year-old civil-engineering major at Iowa State and an immigrant champion golfer who had recently won the European Ladies' Amateur Championship, representing her native country of Spain. Barquin had also just played in the United States Women's Open. She excelled at Iowa State, where she was named Female Athlete of the Year and known as a "spectacular student-athlete" with a fierce competitive spirit.

A couple of days ago, Barquin, like Mollie Tibbetts had done exactly two months before, set out to exercise. She was playing a round of early-morning golf at Coldwater Golf Links in Ames, Iowa, when a man attacked her somewhere around the ninth hole. Staff discovered her body in a pond, her golf bag lying on the fairway nearby. Barquin had been assaulted and stabbed multiple times in the head, neck, and torso. In the afternoon, local police caught a suspect, Collin Daniel Richards, a 22-year-old homeless man who had been living in an encampment surrounding the golf course. Richards has a long criminal record, including drug abuse and a history of violence against women.

While being as horrendous a crime as the killing of Mollie Tibbetts, Celia Barquin's murder has not elicited the same kind of response from America's conservative media or its politicians. There have been no outraged tweets nor indignant segments trying to criminalize all of the homeless community for Richards' atrocious, individual action. President Trump has not bothered to mention the case, even though Barquin's death has been front-page news in Spain. Of the two senators from Iowa, only Joni Ernst commented on the case. In a tweet, Ernst made no mention of Barquin's murderer, focusing instead on the victim and the impact the crime had on the local community and her alma mater.

contrario said:

---

I'm amazed some people that are otherwise reasonable people can honestly think there is any merit to these accusations and even if they are true, they really aren't that bad, especially as it appears it was an isolated incident. From what I gather, two teenagers got drunk, went to a bedroom, he tried to hook up with her, she said no, and he stopped. That's it. Seriously, if this is going to be the new "test" democrats want to put on nominees and politicians, this will not end well for them. Further, if accusations are all it takes, and no proof, I would imagine a lot of "anonymous" accusers will be coming out of the woodwork in the near future. It seems like the democrats are so near sighted they constantly forget the long-term implications and dangerous precedent they are setting.

It's one thing to delay a vote, it's another thing to destroy a man's life over baseless accusations.

---

This is at least the second time I've seen you misrepresent (lie about?) what the accusation is. She didnt "say no, and he stopped", the allegation is she said no so he put his hand over her mouth, locked the door, and turned up the music. It's up for debate if it happenned or not, but what you described is not even close to what's alleged.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

The SCOTUS judge Kananaugh was nominated to replace, Anthony Kennedy, was seated in an election year by a Democratic Senate for a lame duck GOP POTUS.

HuMcK said:

---

contrario said:

---

I'm amazed some people that are otherwise reasonable people can honestly think there is any merit to these accusations and even if they are true, they really aren't that bad, especially as it appears it was an isolated incident. From what I gather, two teenagers got drunk, went to a bedroom, he tried to hook up with her, she said no, and he stopped. That's it. Seriously, if this is going to be the new "test" democrats want to put on nominees and politicians, this will not end well for them. Further, if accusations are all it takes, and no proof, I would imagine a lot of "anonymous" accusers will be coming out of the woodwork in the near future. It seems like the democrats are so near sighted they constantly forget the long-term implications and dangerous precedent they are setting.

It's one thing to delay a vote, it's another thing to destroy a man's life over baseless accusations.

---

This is at least the second time I've seen you misrepresent (lie about?) what the accusation is. She didnt "say no, and he stopped", the allegation is she said no so he put his hand over her mouth, locked the door, and turned up the music. It's up for debate if it happenned or not, but what you described is not even close to what's alleged.

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped. Why lie about the order? I stand by what I said. Two drunk teenagers went in a bedroom, door was shut and music turned on (added for your benefit), she said no and left, and he stopped. Again, this is not uncommon for high school drinking parties. It probably usually goes much worse than unwanted advancements.

When you were younger, did you never get drunk at a party and try to get with a girl? If not, I would be very surprised.

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

contrario said:

---

I'm amazed some people that are otherwise reasonable people can honestly think there is any merit to these accusations and even if they are true, they really aren't that bad, especially as it appears it was an isolated incident. From what I gather, two teenagers got drunk, went to a bedroom, he tried to hook up with her, she said no, and he stopped. That's it. Seriously, if this is going to be the new "test" democrats want to put on nominees and politicians, this will not end well for them. Further, if accusations are all it takes, and no proof, I would imagine a lot of "anonymous" accusers will be coming out of the woodwork in the near future. It seems like the democrats are so near sighted they constantly forget the long-term implications and dangerous precedent they are setting.

It's one thing to delay a vote, it's another thing to destroy a man's life over baseless accusations.

---

This is at least the second time I've seen you misrepresent (lie about?) what the accusation is. She didnt "say no, and he stopped", the allegation is she said no so he put his hand over her mouth, locked the door, and turned up the music. It's up for debate if it happenned or not, but what you described is not even close to what's alleged.

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped. Why lie about the order? I stand by what I said. Two drunk teenagers went in a bedroom, door was shut and music turned on (added for your benefit), she said no and left, and he stopped. Again, this is not uncommon for high school drinking parties. It probably usually goes much worse than unwanted advancements.

When you were younger, did you never get drunk at a party and try to get with a girl? If not, I would be very surprised.

---

You left out the hand over her mouth to keep her quiet part, and again you mischaracterize how it ended by saying "he stopped", allegedly he didn't stop she just was able to get away. I think it says a lot about what you really think that you keep trying to soften up the details to make yourself feel better.

And no, I can honestly say that I've never behaved in the way described. I don't know about you, but where I come from we were taught "no means no" pretty early on. I actually know someone who ended up getting his a$$ beat because he tried to pull a similar move on a girl at a HS party and got caught by some other guys. He probably would have walked away but the phrase that got him beat up was he kept saying something along the lines of "what's the big deal, everyone does it".

contrario said:

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

---

Can't be proven.

She waited too long.

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

---

The other boy says it didn't happen. Kavanaugh says it didn't happen. Alleged victim not sure when it happened or where it happened or who else was at the party.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

---

Can't be proven.

She waited too long.

---

No. To a Democrat, she waited exactly long enough. No matter how false her accusations.

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

The SCOTUS judge Kananaugh was nominated to replace, Anthony Kennedy, was seated in an election year by a Democratic Senate for a lame duck GOP POTUS.

---

That was an exception to the rule, and only after Bork was rejected and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

The SCOTUS judge Kananaugh was nominated to replace, Anthony Kennedy, was seated in an election year by a Democratic Senate for a lame duck GOP POTUS.

---

That was an exception to the rule, and only after Bork was rejected and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew.

---

There's really no "rule" for Kennedy to be an exception to, that's just McConnell's fig-leaf justification for what he did to Garland. Bork was rejected for wholly justifiable reasons, Ginsburg not so much but he withdrew his own name. What happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented, and its ramifications will carry on for a while.

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

The SCOTUS judge Kananaugh was nominated to replace, Anthony Kennedy, was seated in an election year by a Democratic Senate for a lame duck GOP POTUS.

---

That was an exception to the rule, and only after Bork was rejected and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew.

---

There's really no "rule" for Kennedy to be an exception to, that's just McConnell's fig-leaf justification for what he did to Garland. Bork was rejected for wholly justifiable reasons, Ginsburg not so much but he withdrew his own name. What happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented, and its ramifications will carry on for a while.

---

That's simply not true. To take just a couple of examples, a Republican Senate held up the replacement of Peter Vivian Daniel in 1861 so Abraham Lincoln could appoint his successor. Lincoln replaced four justices and created a new seat on the court for good measure, for a total of five appointments. Lincoln was succeeded by Democrat Andrew Johnson. The Senate rejected one of his nominees, refused to vote on the other one, and passed a law reducing the number of justices from ten to seven. When Republican Ulysses Grant was elected, Congress raised the number back to nine.

Supreme Court nominations have been politicized since the emergence of the two party system in the early 1800s. What happened to Garland was in no way unprecedented or surprising. What's unprecedented is the extreme level of character assassination, which Democrats have pioneered and which some people apparently consider more legitimate than voting "no" or allowing a nomination to expire.

The radical far right liberal mind in a nut shell. They know their voters have no clue as long as they obstruct and tell lies.