Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Kavanaugh Hearing

Discussion in 'GC Hall of Fame' started by ursidman, Sep 4, 2018.

  1. fubar1

    fubar1 Premium Member

    5,791
    527
    958
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jacksonville, FL
    The committee has hundreds of thousands of documentation and all of his prior decisions already in their possession. And they have plenty of time to sift through the remainder before this hearing is over.

    Kavanaugh is more than qualified and your anger is simply partisan.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  2. fubar1

    fubar1 Premium Member

    5,791
    527
    958
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jacksonville, FL
    Why was #1 a travesty?
     
  3. BobK89

    BobK89 GC Hall of Fame

    12,068
    434
    818
    Apr 9, 2007
    Tampa, FL
    Because the Supreme Court was operating with one less member for over one year. Had Scalia died in September 2016, I could understand the delay.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. fubar1

    fubar1 Premium Member

    5,791
    527
    958
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jacksonville, FL
    The USSC has operated before without 9 justices and it’s perfectly capable of doing so. In fact, the number of justices is not stipulated in the Constitution and Congress has the authority to increase or decrease the number. It’s been more than 9 and less than 9 at different points in its history.

    So how is 8 a travesty?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. grumpygator77

    grumpygator77 Freshman

    22
    1
    1,743
    Nov 26, 2017
    The ACA was passed with months and months of reviews by both sides. Even then President Obama spoke to Congress about it.

    This nonsense of "had to be passed before you could see what was in it" is a total BS. Simply an age old tired talking point. If one does any research at all, it would be obvious that that was far, far, far, from the case with the ACA.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
  6. BobK89

    BobK89 GC Hall of Fame

    12,068
    434
    818
    Apr 9, 2007
    Tampa, FL
    Because the Senate could have and should have filled the vacancy, IMO.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. grumpygator77

    grumpygator77 Freshman

    22
    1
    1,743
    Nov 26, 2017
    Maybe you forgot about how the Republicans simply refused to hold any hearings on any Supreme Court Justice nomination Obama put forth--- with almost 9 months left in his presidency.
    Including Merrick Garland, a man the Republicans said they supported. Yet Stonewalling Obama was more important.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    121,072
    161,863
    116,973
    Apr 3, 2007
    The Senate should have done their job and voted him up or down.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  9. grumpygator77

    grumpygator77 Freshman

    22
    1
    1,743
    Nov 26, 2017
    Only when it benefits the Republicans is it not a travesty.
    Sorry, not buying what you are selling here.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  10. philobeddoe

    philobeddoe GC Hall of Fame

    5,930
    87
    373
    Apr 11, 2007
    Nah …. this is just more leftie ridiculousness. They're pissed (a) their gal lost to "the Donald" … and (b) Trumps going to add conservative to the SCOTUS. It's just mindless liberal political nonsense. The moronic demonstrations pretty much prove as much.
     
  11. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy

    Apr 3, 2007
    The Dems are trying to get payback for the Pubs blocking votes on justices in 2016.

    But they don't have the power to effectively do it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    121,072
    161,863
    116,973
    Apr 3, 2007
    McConnell handled it poorly in my opinion. He should have had the hearings, and then voted. They had the votes to vote him down.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  13. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    14,975
    5,245
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    The travesty was leaving a spot open for so long despite having a nomination that many Republicans previously supported in order to play political games. It's why I nearly spit out my drink every time I hear the Republicans now claim that the Supreme Court should not be politicized.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy

    Apr 3, 2007
    I don't see it as some travesty but agree with you on being incredulous at Pubs claiming the Supreme Court should not be politicized. True for Dems as well.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  15. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    14,975
    5,245
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    I think it's a terrible way to treat a man who worked as hard as he did to earn that opportunity.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    29,073
    11,418
    3,443
    Aug 26, 2008
    It's both sides. Quit fooling yourself.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. fubar1

    fubar1 Premium Member

    5,791
    527
    958
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jacksonville, FL
    Why?
     
  18. grumpygator77

    grumpygator77 Freshman

    22
    1
    1,743
    Nov 26, 2017
    I know it feels good to try and equalize this.
    It's just another false equivalency.
    Fooling yourself is one thing. Lying to yourself is another.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  19. fubar1

    fubar1 Premium Member

    5,791
    527
    958
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jacksonville, FL
    You’re calling it a travesty. Your words, not mine.

    I have no problem with the Senate not confirming a USSC Justice in the final year of a President’s 2nd term, the political climate notwithstanding. Would feel the same under the same scenario if it happens to Trump.

    The Senate is also voted in by the American people and they have advice and consent authority and by exercising it in this manner and under these circumstances, you are labeling that a “travesty”. That’s not only hyperbole but simply wrong-headed.
     
  20. fubar1

    fubar1 Premium Member

    5,791
    527
    958
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jacksonville, FL
    Who are the “many” Republicans that previously supported Garland for a seat on the USSC?
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1