Brett Kavanaugh just hired the Supreme Court's first all-women law clerk team

No, Libs and Dems just don't believe everything they're told....like certain sheep.....

 

Actually, progs will believe anything, which is why they'll believe Christine Blasey Ford's story without a shred of proof.

 

He is reliving Charlie Wilson. He loved that movie.

 

Amazing how many liberals are getting more and more butt hurt every day.

Trump 1,000 Liberal Left 3

While my score may not be 100% accurate, it surely represents a picture of the defeats the liberal left have taken since 2016! If the Democrats don't win both houses of Congress in November it will be another great defeat for the liberals.

On to the OP, thank you Justice Kavanaugh for your courageous actions!

 

Since the subject probably wouldn't remember a blackout, what would be "proof" of blackout drinking??

How about his college drinking buddies??

SNIP
We each asserted that Brett lied to the Senate by stating, under oath, that he never drank to the point of forgetting what he was doing. We said, unequivocally, that each of us, on numerous occasions, had seen Brett stumbling drunk to the point that it would be impossible for him to state with any degree of certainty that he remembered everything that he did when drunk.
ENDSNIP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.afbdcec1f032

I'm guessing since there is no timestamped video with clear views of Kavanaughs face WHILE holding a newspaper up with the date stamp on it and a copy of a BAC report with a similar timestamp on the video, there is no "proof" you would accept.

Since there will never be a court case on this subject, I feel I can use the statements of people who are likely to know to remove the "alleged" at this time.

 

Now this is what I actually said.

Sorry, peddle that bullshit somewhere else.

 

Hmm. Same then with Bill Clinton and "rapist"?

 

No.. rapist is a legal distinction and carries that weight... cant call Clinton a rapist without a conviction....blackout drunk is just a MAJOR character flaw...

 

No, but you might want to reconsider your claim about the filibuster. The filibuster was still in place until the GOP eliminated it for Supreme Court nominees in 2017. They only used Harry Reid as a justification when they did it.

Oh, shut up.

 

Since there is no proof of either, maybe best to stop typing and getting yourself deeper in the do-do.

 

Baaaaaaah!

 

Hmmmm....Wasn't Clarence Thomas confirmed 56-44? So, what is the history of this filibuster you're complaining about?

 

Oh, I'm not complaining about it; I'm just correcting the record with respect to the filibuster WRT a Supreme Court nominee.

BTW, at the time Thomas was nominated, we had a Republican President, and the Democrats had a majority in the Senate. The Democrats would not have "filibustered" (something the minority would do) and neither would the republicans, as Thomas was a Republican President's own nominee.

 

Just sayin....The supposed filibuster was never a set pat rule....Never has been.

 

Not being able to prove something didn't happen is inconsequential in the light of not being able to prove it did happen. Comments of people who claim what others may or may not have remembered are also inconsequential even weighted by phrase like "under oath". How can one person gauge what another person remembers without a baseline reference? It would be like taking a history test without an answer key to grade against. It cant be done. Furthermore the claims themselves are subjective. To one person, such as my late aunt a second class of wine is excessive. To another, such as President Obama, drinking a six pack in under an hour before class was normal. The fact that not a single Democratic Senator has brought perjury charges, when they are empowered to do so, should be indicator of the frivolous futility of perusing this.

 

Nobody's required to filibuster.

 

Good, we agree....There was nothing nefarious by allowing Kavanaugh, or any other justice a simple majority....So, we can dispense with that talking point.

 

wow. you just called these young women who made it through law school hookers? shame on you.

stop pretending you care about women.

 

Scroll WAY WAY back to post #130....

 

It’s not just a “talking point”; eliminating it in the context of a Supreme Court nominee does allow a small majority to ram through that nominee and takes away the leverage that the minority used to have.

 

Oh I see.. it's OK when you want to drop 'alleged', but not when someone else wants to.
How liberal of you.

 

Democrats may be 'empowered' to bring perjury charges, without control of either Congressional wing, it obviously wouldn't be pursued by a bootlicking Trumpublican majority. That should be changing in November.

Nonetheless, I'm still not going to use alleged when I refer to Brett Kavanaugh as a former blackout drinker...

MAGA!

 

You don't see a connection between Reid dropping the 60 vote cloture rule for judicial nominees and McConnell dropping the 60 vote cloture rule for judicial nominees?

 

You can call it a "small majority" if you please, doesn't change the fact that it has forever only taken a majority of Senators to confirm a SCOTUS justice....The rest is just sour grapes.