Kavanaugh 2.0

4,974 Views | 203 Replies | Last: 23 days ago by Osodecentx
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Three years of false allegations designed to unseat a duly elected president and a duly appointed Supreme Court justice, and it's the Republicans who are undermining democracy? Unbelievable.
Jinx 2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

Doc Holliday said:

Jinx 2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Jinx 2 said:

This is not a conversation we should be having about an appointee to the highest court in the land.

That tantrum Kavanaugh threw made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. A friend is married to a high-functioning alcholic, and she was upset because she recognized the defensive and abusive tone he took with Sen. Amuy Kobachar. I don't think he would have snarled "I like beer. Do you like beer, Senator?" at a man of either party.

That hearing shredded what was left of SCOTUS's legitimacy following the Merrick Garland stonewall. People need to have faith in the democratic system and the objectivity of the justice system, and the Republicans have undermined BOTH of those foundations. Shame on them.
All the DNC presidential candidates raped me at the same time while drinking Soy tall boys and playing eminem while shouting "THIS IS DNC CALIPHATE!"

I have 314 alleged witnesses.
Go public!
At some point jinx, you need some common sense.

Put logic before politics for once in your life.
She can't. She's too bitter about Hillary's loss. She can't let go.

Hillary wasn't my favorite candiate. My mistake was thinking she was more electable than Bernie Sanders, who was too far t the left for me. Looking back, I think he would have beat Trump. People wanted change and Hillary was the status quo.

If I'm bitter about anything, it's that the Republicans sold out to a crass boob like Trump. I'm embarrassed and scared every day he's president.
Jinx 2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Three years of false allegations designed to unseat a duly elected president and a duly appointed Supreme Court justice, and it's the Republicans who are undermining democracy? Unbelievable.
Merrick Garland.

No tax returns.

Lies on a daily basis.

Nepotism.

....
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

riflebear said:

Jinx 2 said:

This is not a conversation we should be having about an appointee to the highest court in the land.

That tantrum Kavanaugh threw made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. A friend is married to a high-functioning alcholic, and she was upset because she recognized the defensive and abusive tone he took with Sen. Amuy Kobachar. I don't think he would have snarled "I like beer. Do you like beer, Senator?" at a man of either party.

That hearing shredded what was left of SCOTUS's legitimacy following the Merrick Garland stonewall. People need to have faith in the democratic system and the objectivity of the justice system, and the Republicans have undermined BOTH of those foundations. Shame on them.
How would you have reacted if this had happened to you, then?

Please read...


Twitter is not a valid news source. It's like the old game of "Gossip" we used to play in youth group.


Is it even worth pointing out that Twitter is not the source here?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Three years of false allegations designed to unseat a duly elected president and a duly appointed Supreme Court justice, and it's the Republicans who are undermining democracy? Unbelievable.
Merrick Garland.

No tax returns.

Lies on a daily basis.

Nepotism.

....
I'll say it again so you can ignore it again: there was nothing unusual about Merrick Garland. Outgoing presidents historically don't get SCOTUS appointments confirmed when they don't have a Senate majority. Nepotism laws don't apply to the president, there was no nepotism in Trump's hires, and it would be a moot point if there were since his relatives aren't paid. Releasing tax returns is a voluntary custom that only started with Nixon. As for lies, we could argue til the cows come home about who lies more. That's half of what political debate is.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

Isn't there a professional society that will censure "journalists" when they do something like that? Do journalists have a license? They desperately need some standards in the field. They are taking the country down a path to civil war with their malpractice.
There is no licensing of journalists (nor should there be), there are professional organizations, but they depend on media organizations behaving by those standards. I don't know what the solution is.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Three years of false allegations designed to unseat a duly elected president and a duly appointed Supreme Court justice, and it's the Republicans who are undermining democracy? Unbelievable.
Merrick Garland.

No tax returns.

Lies on a daily basis.

Nepotism.

....
1. Washington Post had this information and refused to publish because they considered it unreliable.

2. Democrats on Senate Judiciary had this information and did nothing with it. Why?

3. NY Times had to correct their story to add critical information originally omitted.

4. The information in NY Times appeared in editorial page, not the news side. Why?
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Three years of false allegations designed to unseat a duly elected president and a duly appointed Supreme Court justice, and it's the Republicans who are undermining democracy? Unbelievable.
Merrick Garland.

No tax returns.

Lies on a daily basis.

Nepotism.

....


Just out of idle curiosity, which five Republican senators did you think were going to vote to confirm Garland?
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Three years of false allegations designed to unseat a duly elected president and a duly appointed Supreme Court justice, and it's the Republicans who are undermining democracy? Unbelievable.
Merrick Garland.

No tax returns.

Lies on a daily basis.

Nepotism.

....
Jinx,
The fact that you are unbothered by the NYT's lack of journalistic integrity says a lot about you, and none of it good. That Trump "lies on a daily basis" does not create an excuse for journalists to abandon their professionalism. Politicians traffic in lies. Journalists are supposed to drive home the truth.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The victim Hillary's buddy is making this up about in this NY Times story doesn't even remember the alleged situation. That's how bizarre this is.

And we have 6 Presidential candidates saying he should be impeached.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"And we have 6 Presidential candidates saying he should be impeached."

Another reason Trump will win re-election.

Most of America does not care much about what Kavanaugh did in high school or college, unless there was compelling evidence of criminal guilt.

The FBI investigations were thorough and decisive in Kavanaugh's favor.

So this is a dead horse, One which won't appeal to most Americans.

Democrats need to show they are serious about issues which matter to Americans. This will just drive independent voters to Trump, not because they like him but because the Democrats refuse to offer a credible alternative.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?

You know when CBS is calling our this sham things are really bad for the libs.


riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:



Ramirrez's account of her treatment, which amounted to a cruel form of humliation rather than assault, has been corroborated by a number of credible witnesses. The FBI just wouldn't talk to them, despite being requested to do so by Sen. Chris Coons. I believe Blasey-Ford, but think that he was so drunk he had no memory of it.

And it's readily apparent that the girls in his circle were meaningless nobodies to him--essentially nameless targets of crude innuendo and drunken assaults or, with Ramirez, acts of cruelty intended to demean.

But had he said, "I drank too much in high school and college and I know I did some things I regret and probably don't remember all of them," I might have concluded he had the wisdom, character and maturity needed to serve on the Supreme Court.

He didn't do that. Instead, he angrily denied the allegations and characterized them as an assault against HIM, throwing a public tantrum that gained the admiration of Trump and won him the support of all of the old White Republican Men on the Senate Judiciary Committee, but proving to any rational observer that he was not qualified by character or temperament for a seat on the highest court in the land.

When you pass the bar, there's a character requirement. Kavanaugh's sefl-serving, mean-drunk public rant during what was essentially a high-profile job interview televised to the entire nation made me wonder if he even qualified for admission to the bar, much less a seat on SCOTUS.


You were saying?



BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Isn't there a professional society that will censure "journalists" when they do something like that? Do journalists have a license? They desperately need some standards in the field. They are taking the country down a path to civil war with their malpractice.
There is no licensing of journalists (nor should there be), there are professional organizations, but they depend on media organizations behaving by those standards. I don't know what the solution is.


The journalistic professional organizations have done an absolute terrible job policing the profession. Doctors have to have to pass board exams and get a medical license in order to practice. Assuming they pass the boards, if the mess up enough, they lose the ability to practice. It seems to me what "journalists" can do with a pen is more dangerous to society than what a doctor can do.
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The fact that jinx's hair has stood up regarding several republicans, but she has never used that language regarding similar allegations against democrats, is all you need to know about how balanced Jinx is.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There's absolutely no way journalists will be subject to licensing requirements consistent with the 1st Amendment. It cannot and should not happen.

What is frightening is that liberals are losing their attachment to journalistic standards. The mainstream media have been biased to the left for a long time, but they've also adhered to certain rules. If the NYT isn't at least striving to be objective, who will? Certainly not FOX News. We're increasingly at risk of a situation where all journalism is advocacy.
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

There's absolutely no way journalists will be subject to licensing requirements consistent with the 1st Amendment. It cannot and should not happen.

What is frightening is that liberals are losing their attachment to journalistic standards. The mainstream media have been biased to the left for a long time, but they've also adhered to certain rules. If the NYT isn't at least striving to be objective, who will? Certainly not FOX News. We're increasingly at risk of a situation where all journalism is advocacy.
There is no risk of that, it has already happened. There isn't journalism anymore, only stories written in a way to appeal to their confirmation bias starving readers. FNC, CNN, NYT, they are all appealing to their audience. There is no incentive to do objective journalism.
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So NYT editors removed details from the story. Why? Interview below:

"In your draft of the article, did it include those words that have since been added to the article?" MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell asked.

"It did," both Pogrebin and Kelly responded.

"So somewhere in the editing process, those words were trimmed," O'Donnell said in clarification.
Jinx 2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/15/calls-justice-kavanaughs-impeachment-are-mounting-heres-how-it-could-work/

What's clear, however, is that perjury is a significant offense, especially for a judge.

The question of lying under oath is particularly important for someone who would be or is a member of the judiciary, according to Lisa Graves, a former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer who called for Kavanaugh's impeachment after his confirmation to the Supreme Court.

A judge, she said, is a symbol of integrity and the law. To the extent that a judge's integrity is tainted, it disables that person from being able to continue as a judge.

"Lawyers are officers of the court," Graves, who is also a former deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, told The Post. "Courts rule on matters and assess witness credibility all the time, so honesty, integrity and truthfulness are paramount qualities for a judge."
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

There's absolutely no way journalists will be subject to licensing requirements consistent with the 1st Amendment. It cannot and should not happen.

What is frightening is that liberals are losing their attachment to journalistic standards. The mainstream media have been biased to the left for a long time, but they've also adhered to certain rules. If the NYT isn't at least striving to be objective, who will? Certainly not FOX News. We're increasingly at risk of a situation where all journalism is advocacy.
It's already there. There has to be a way to balance free speech rights with basic journalism standards. You are entitled to free speech but not a national platform to spew lies.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

fadskier said:

Doc Holliday said:

Jinx 2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Jinx 2 said:

This is not a conversation we should be having about an appointee to the highest court in the land.

That tantrum Kavanaugh threw made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. A friend is married to a high-functioning alcholic, and she was upset because she recognized the defensive and abusive tone he took with Sen. Amuy Kobachar. I don't think he would have snarled "I like beer. Do you like beer, Senator?" at a man of either party.

That hearing shredded what was left of SCOTUS's legitimacy following the Merrick Garland stonewall. People need to have faith in the democratic system and the objectivity of the justice system, and the Republicans have undermined BOTH of those foundations. Shame on them.
All the DNC presidential candidates raped me at the same time while drinking Soy tall boys and playing eminem while shouting "THIS IS DNC CALIPHATE!"

I have 314 alleged witnesses.
Go public!
At some point jinx, you need some common sense.

Put logic before politics for once in your life.
She can't. She's too bitter about Hillary's loss. She can't let go.

Hillary wasn't my favorite candiate. My mistake was thinking she was more electable than Bernie Sanders, who was too far t the left for me. Looking back, I think he would have beat Trump. People wanted change and Hillary was the status quo.

If I'm bitter about anything, it's that the Republicans sold out to a crass boob like Trump. I'm embarrassed and scared every day he's president.
I didn't sell out. I voted for my candidate. When he didn't win the nomination, it came down to Hillary v. Trump. Trump was the only choice. I was not a pro-Trumper early on, but when people like you go all insane over everything that happens, it makes me support him more.

The women's march, the twisting of his quotes, the attempted character assassination of Kavanaugh...you people need to pick your battles. You get triggered by everything.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Three years of false allegations designed to unseat a duly elected president and a duly appointed Supreme Court justice, and it's the Republicans who are undermining democracy? Unbelievable.
Merrick Garland.

No tax returns.

Lies on a daily basis.

Nepotism.

....
Not illegal and logical

Not required

Lies of exaggerates? Obama's anti-police rhetoric was far more damaging to our country.

Don't care.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/15/calls-justice-kavanaughs-impeachment-are-mounting-heres-how-it-could-work/

What's clear, however, is that perjury is a significant offense, especially for a judge.

The question of lying under oath is particularly important for someone who would be or is a member of the judiciary, according to Lisa Graves, a former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer who called for Kavanaugh's impeachment after his confirmation to the Supreme Court.

A judge, she said, is a symbol of integrity and the law. To the extent that a judge's integrity is tainted, it disables that person from being able to continue as a judge.

"Lawyers are officers of the court," Graves, who is also a former deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, told The Post. "Courts rule on matters and assess witness credibility all the time, so honesty, integrity and truthfulness are paramount qualities for a judge."
What did he lie about?
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I am suspicious of the word reportedly. Good journalism confirms reports. - Waco47
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/15/calls-justice-kavanaughs-impeachment-are-mounting-heres-how-it-could-work/

What's clear, however, is that perjury is a significant offense, especially for a judge.

The question of lying under oath is particularly important for someone who would be or is a member of the judiciary, according to Lisa Graves, a former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer who called for Kavanaugh's impeachment after his confirmation to the Supreme Court.

A judge, she said, is a symbol of integrity and the law. To the extent that a judge's integrity is tainted, it disables that person from being able to continue as a judge.

"Lawyers are officers of the court," Graves, who is also a former deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, told The Post. "Courts rule on matters and assess witness credibility all the time, so honesty, integrity and truthfulness are paramount qualities for a judge."
It's he said she said, and with most of the accusations, it's "she can't remember any facts" or "she doesn't remember the incident, but a Clinton associate with an axe to grind remembers."

I know you are just a binary simpleton, but those of us that live in the real world and live under the laws of the US know that we need facts and we need to prove guilt, and innocence is assumed until then. Certainly before we impeach a distinguished Supreme Court Justice, we need facts. It's sad because of these allegations were against a democrat, you would complete mental gymnastics to defend the democrat, but since it's a Republican, guilt is assumed. But what's even more puzzling for those of us that practice cognitive consistency is that you said the fact that allegations are made, not matter how factual they are, is enough to discredit his position. That is an unbelievably stupid stance to take.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Isn't there a professional society that will censure "journalists" when they do something like that? Do journalists have a license? They desperately need some standards in the field. They are taking the country down a path to civil war with their malpractice.
There is no licensing of journalists (nor should there be), there are professional organizations, but they depend on media organizations behaving by those standards. I don't know what the solution is.


The journalistic professional organizations have done an absolute terrible job policing the profession. Doctors have to have to pass board exams and get a medical license in order to practice. Assuming they pass the boards, if the mess up enough, they lose the ability to practice. It seems to me what "journalists" can do with a pen is more dangerous to society than what a doctor can do.
We used to educate journalists and train them to have very high ethical standards. Those have slipped precipitously, probably because of a combination of factors. The problem with treating journalists like doctors is that it runs afoul of the First Amendment.
Jinx 2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Three years of false allegations designed to unseat a duly elected president and a duly appointed Supreme Court justice, and it's the Republicans who are undermining democracy? Unbelievable.
Merrick Garland.

No tax returns.

Lies on a daily basis.

Nepotism.

....
Jinx,
The fact that you are unbothered by the NYT's lack of journalistic integrity says a lot about you, and none of it good. That Trump "lies on a daily basis" does not create an excuse for journalists to abandon their professionalism. Politicians traffic in lies. Journalists are supposed to drive home the truth.
Here's a story about the Times' reporting: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/turmoil-engulfs-the-times-over-kavanaugh-debacle

And here's a link to Terry Gross's Fresh Air podcast yesterday I listened to about this story: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9MzgxNDQ0OTA4&episode=MWU0MjJiZGEtY2IxZS00MjE1LWI1OWEtN2I2OGRkYjljNmE2&hl=en&ep=6&at=1568728912433

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Vanity Fair is not exactly an exemplar of integrity and balance in its articles.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Vanity Fair is not exactly an exemplar of integrity and balance in its articles.
Indeed.

When other outlets refuse to run a story because it isn't credible, and the NYT runs it in what is basically an opinion section, that's a serious ethical failing on their part and only serves to further erode already low levels of trust in media.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Vanity Fair is not exactly an exemplar of integrity and balance in its articles.
Indeed.

When other outlets refuse to run a story because it isn't credible, and the NYT runs it in what is basically an opinion section, that's a serious ethical failing on their part and only serves to further erode already low levels of trust in media.
And this speaks to the broader problem.

Back in the 19th Century, newspapers had devolved to the point where knowing the name of the paper told you what they would say about the political leaders of the day. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was excoriated by some newspapers, but held up as a near-saint by others. But the divide between opposing opinions was closed by the late 19th Century, not by integrity and ethics but by newspapers being bought out so only one opinion was widely heard - that of William Randolph Hearst. Whether true or not, the belief that the United States was shoved into the Spanish-American war in Cuba because of Hearst's "yellow journalism" demonstrates the influence and power that the press held in the day of President McKinley. Add the dimensions of television and internet, and it's hardly shocking to see that fact-free reporting is quite the norm.

While some may be pleased to see news networks in decline, it concerns me to consider that people are more and more compelled to rely on a source known to be partisan and bigoted.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Three years of false allegations designed to unseat a duly elected president and a duly appointed Supreme Court justice, and it's the Republicans who are undermining democracy? Unbelievable.
Merrick Garland.

No tax returns.

Lies on a daily basis.

Nepotism.

....
Jinx,
The fact that you are unbothered by the NYT's lack of journalistic integrity says a lot about you, and none of it good. That Trump "lies on a daily basis" does not create an excuse for journalists to abandon their professionalism. Politicians traffic in lies. Journalists are supposed to drive home the truth.
Here's a story about the Times' reporting: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/turmoil-engulfs-the-times-over-kavanaugh-debacle

And here's a link to Terry Gross's Fresh Air podcast yesterday I listened to about this story: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9MzgxNDQ0OTA4&episode=MWU0MjJiZGEtY2IxZS00MjE1LWI1OWEtN2I2OGRkYjljNmE2&hl=en&ep=6&at=1568728912433


I heard much of Gross' "interview" and it was infuriating. Gross and the authors of the now debunked hit piece had a discussion as though all accusations (including Fords) against Kav were true. There was no talk about about credibility or the multitude of problems with these, at best, dubious accusations. They just proceeded on in their own little fantasy world.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?

Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?




They're Socialist and so will never support democracy

They should be jailed for treason
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I know libs like to blame FoxNews for just about anything but never thought they would go there w/ this story.

Jinx 2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?


I had that same question--how the hell can these people claim to support democracy?-when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was, and that it's viewed by most Democrats as undermining both the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the nomination process.

Gorsuch is illegitimate because he's occupying a stolen seat, although he's certainly qualified to sit on SCOTUS; Kavanaugh because he's a jerk and doesn't belong there for reasons of character--not so much because he was a mean drunk in high school and college, but because of that tantrum. If a female nominee had thrown such a tantrum during what amounts to a very high-profile job interview, she's have been dismissed as too emotional to sit on a Court that's supposed to dispense impartial justice. Kavanaugh was viewed as rightly defending himself by Trump/hard-right-wingers. The double standard working overtime.

But trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, IMO, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who clearly weren't interested in investigating Kavanaugh's past, nor a concern of Trump and his supporters.

Trump--and following his lead, most people posting here-- have painted Blasey Ford (who had no compelling reason whatsoever to come forward other than her personal sense that Kavanaugh shouldn't sit on SCOTUS), Debbie Ramirez and others, as liars, dupes and tool of some calculated "leftist" campaign to smear the otherwise sterling character of Brett Kavanaugh.

But here's the thing: since these allegation arose at the time of the "Me, too" movement (which I realize those of you posting on this thread scorn either because you think women lie or because you don't think sexual harassment rises to the level of disqualifying anyone for office), Democrats felt that they had to respond, even at the great political cost that resulted. Kirstin Gillebrand had insisted Al Franken resign from HIS seat over lesser allegations. Lots of women were watching to see what would happen. Everybody remembered Clarence Thomas, and it's since become clear to everyone but hard-core "party-faithful-inerrancy" Republicans that Anita Hill's allegations were true and Clarence Thomas didn't belong on SCOTUS. He certainly lacks the intellectual heft of most of his colleagues, with the exception of Alito.

And it wasn't lost on anyone that the older, white, male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't want to do any meaningful investigation. The FBI investigation they finally grudgingly consented to was superficial and incomplete and omitted key figures like Mark Judge (who probably doesn't remember much about high school, anyway, thanks to his lifelong alcoholism). And they--strategically rightly and morally wrongly--trashed the character allegations against Kavanaugh and the woman/woman who brought them.

I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.

The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't. He didn't think it was, either.
Page 2 of 6
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.