re: The Democrats' Latest Ploy to Obstruct Kavanaugh's Confirmation

quote:

---

Having no legitimate reason to object to Kavanaugh's appointment, Democrats seek the next best thing — to obstruct by deception, delaying his confirmation hearings until after the midterm elections, in which they hope to gain the majority in the House so that they can commence their already planned impeachment proceedings.

---

You can't postpone the game because you star QB isn't in the game. You play with the men that are on the field.

quote:

---

Only the most purposefully ignorant and mentally defective fanatic could possibly believe what you posted there.

You have earned the award for 'dumbest internet post of the year' award.

---

You seem to have forgotten a few things.

Bork was nominated in July and denied in October of the same year.

He was handled badly but not nearly as much so as many before him in our history.

shite like releasing his video rental history was a bit new but in all fairness he thought the southern states had the right to reinstate the poll tax, something that horrified the left, that dumb arse also did himself no favors with his quid pro quo with Nixon over Watergate.

Bork was a shite candidate for the SC seat and Reagan only nominated him because he believed there was no limit on presidential authority and Iran-Contra was blowing up at the time.

At one time you were a level headed poster before joining the mob of idiots, it should be beneath you at your age.

Awesome...

It's like they are trying to get the GOP base out in November for the midterms.

quote:

---

Garland vote was held because the president was in his last year of his term

---

You can't see the differences here?

quote:

---

It may be sour grapes

---

I think you are right


At least you are honest about it

I saw one lib media discussion saying potential double jeopardy issues with Manafort as the reason to day Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Notwithstanding that Manafort’s crimes have Zero to do with Trump.

quote:

---

it cant hurt to pause for a few weeks to make certain.

---

Make certain of what??

The 2016 election was a certainty in terms of the date.

You are implying that Trump "might" be impeached and be in the last year/month/weeks of his term?

This is nothing close to correlateable. This is pure hypocrisy at its most deplorable. McConnell did exactly what Reid would have done had Ruth Bader Ginsburg died during the 2008 election. In fact, the DEMs were so afraid that it MIGHT happen they adopted the "Biden Rule" to ensure that Bush would not be able to replace a stalwart lib activist with a constitutional Justice.

If you deny that, you are living in a self-constructed bubble of ignorance and malevolence.

I sincerely WISH politics in the past half centurys had not devolved into the shite-storm that it has become, but I am also sick of the GOP playing by the "Margquis of Queesbiury" rules while the DEMOCRATs pummeled them with brass knuckles for 50 years.

DEMOCRATs have made politics a mud-fight where they are permitted to do anything they want, but the GOP must be constrained to just sit back and "take it."

I have been sick of if for decades now - Conservatives just want to live their lives under the constitution that was adopted and periodically amended.

YOU want a SCOTUS that will ignore the plain intent of the constitution and construct 'rulings' that bend our governance in accord with the latest mob action or hair-brained 'make more dependents' desire that the DEMOCRATs want to cultivate new voters.

You cannot convince anyone of your agenda. You have to hide it while you whittle away at the underpinnings of our great nation. You want to IMPORT new voters to effectively marginalize the real citizenry of the USA.

Screw you and the DEMOCRAT agenda.

quote:

---

but in all fairness he thought the southern states had the right to reinstate the poll tax,

---

I’ll help you out a little.

From Bork’s hearing:

quote:

---

BORK: … I have no desire to bring poll taxes back into existence. I do not like them myself. But if that had been a poll tax applied in a discriminatory fashion, it would have clearly been unconstitutional. It was not. I mean, there was no showing in the case. It was just a $1.50 poll tax.

This Congress had just recently drafted and proposed to the States and had adopted an anti-poll tax amendment to the Constitution which this Congress carefully limited to federal elections so as to leave State poll taxes in place if States chose to have them. That seemed to me a little odd, therefore, that the Court would come along and mop up something that Congress did not bother to amend the Constitution to accomplish. Not did not bother; deliberately did not.

The poll tax was familiar in American history and nobody ever thought it was unconstitutional unless it was racially discriminatory. Now, in Harper itself Justice Black—who was hardly a man who was insensitive to voting rights—Justice Harlan and Justice Stewart all dissented from the majority holding. Justice Black said the Court was using the old natural law due process formula to write into the Constitution notions of what it thinks is good government policy. Harper overruled a prior case in which the majority had upheld the poll tax and in that case Justices Black, Frankfurter, Jackson and others upheld the poll tax.

Archibald Cox has said, and I quote, “the opinion seems almost perversely to repudiate every conventional guide to legal judgment,” although he liked the result. I like the result too. I just do not see the legal judgment there. Alexander Bickel made much the same criticism. It is a decision that is hard to square with out constitutional history.

---

quote:

---

You seem to have forgotten a few things.

---

You seem to have forgotten the Ted Kennedy/Joe Biden display of rank hysteria and lying attacks on Bork.

Both of these two assholes should have been shunned from polite society after their slanderous outrages.

There is not precedent to what happened to Bork.

If there were arguable opposition because of

quote:

---

southern states had the right to reinstate the poll tax

---

or

quote:

---

???quid pro quo???? with Nixon over Watergate

---

or

quote:

---

limit on presidential authority

---

that surely should have been debated within parliamentary norms and procedures.

Instead what we got was sky-screaming hysteria about back alley abortions and slavery.

Bork made the mistake of honestly answering questions and put the DEMOCRATs in the position of defending their obviously outlandish interpretation of the constitution. Since Bork, you cannot get a nominee to share his real position on any topic. The confirmation process is now reduced to searching out 'gotcha' trivia to blather about.

quote:

---

From Bork’s hearing:
quote:
BORK: … I have no desire to bring poll taxes back into existence. I do not like them myself. But if that had been a poll tax applied in a discriminatory fashion, it would have clearly been unconstitutional. It was not. I mean, there was no showing in the case. It was just a $1.50 poll tax.

This Congress had just recently drafted and proposed to the States and had adopted an anti-poll tax amendment to the Constitution which this Congress carefully limited to federal elections so as to leave State poll taxes in place if States chose to have them. That seemed to me a little odd, therefore, that the Court would come along and mop up something that Congress did not bother to amend the Constitution to accomplish. Not did not bother; deliberately did not.

The poll tax was familiar in American history and nobody ever thought it was unconstitutional unless it was racially discriminatory. Now, in Harper itself Justice Black—who was hardly a man who was insensitive to voting rights—Justice Harlan and Justice Stewart all dissented from the majority holding. Justice Black said the Court was using the old natural law due process formula to write into the Constitution notions of what it thinks is good government policy. Harper overruled a prior case in which the majority had upheld the poll tax and in that case Justices Black, Frankfurter, Jackson and others upheld the poll tax.

Archibald Cox has said, and I quote, “the opinion seems almost perversely to repudiate every conventional guide to legal judgment,” although he liked the result. I like the result too. I just do not see the legal judgment there. Alexander Bickel made much the same criticism. It is a decision that is hard to square with out constitutional history.

---

Thanks for the confirmation

the two huge issues here were

1) The "poll tax" is perhaps the biggest dog whistle out there when it comes to disenfranchising minorities, this may be an inaccurate portrayal but he had to be smarter than that when being considered for the SC.

2) A fee to be able to exercise a constitutional right is FUBAR, can you imagine the shite storm if a Dem gets elected and tacks a fee on lets say gun ownership?

Bork should NEVER have been nominated and '80-'86 Reagan would have never considered him, by '87 Reagan had lost quite a few steps to put it kindly.

We are a bit off topic now.

I will stick to my guns though, candidates should be stood up for a vote by both parties in a timely fashion, this holdout nonsense is dereliction of duty regardless of which gang is in power, elections have consequences.