Dems are going at Brett pretty hard.

Do you people ever just stop. The Republicans held their nose at Sotomayor and Kagan but still a majority of them were civil enough to vote them in. Get some class people. Even Ginsberg called the democrats out for their jackass actions during this confirmation. I used to be somewhat non partisan but the actions of the rabid lefties and their childish #resist movement makes me hope when RBG tips over, Trump nominates Ted Cruz to the bench. A fitting poke in the eye to the democrats acting like fools.

 

It would be unprecedented, but so are a lot of things lately. What's different now is partisanship. If they had the numbers, democrats would do it, particularly if Kav is the deciding vote in unpopular decisions, and if things go badly for Trump.

 

And then when the GOP does it in return to one of the liberal justices.... squealing you can hear on the moon.

 

After what McTurtle pulled on Garland, you talk of class? Please. You republicans have a lot coming if what goes around comes around.

 

Maybe if they did something impeachable like Kav, such as commit perjury. This partisanship, it's war now. I hope we become separate countries someday, but until then the gloves are ****ing off. The republican views are wrong, the republicans are corrupt, and they must be fought with every ounce.

 

Why? if the gloves are off, the GOP can do it because it wants to.

Bring it.

 

I accept your concession of the point.

 

Is there a law that requires you to remain in the US? You asked for two separate country's. There are already plenty to choose from. Fight your "war" there and see how long it lasts.

 

Technically speaking, you are talking about Gorsuch. Kavanaugh is the replacement for Justice Kennedy. That said, I do agree that the Senate (not Congress, basic civics, read about it) should have had a hearing and then rejected Garland. The thing is, the Constitution (short document, you should read it) says that the Senate (not Congress) can advise and consent with the President about appointments. The Senate advised Obama not to appoint Garland. They did not consent to his appointment.

 

Regardless of who had control of the Senate, the filibuster on judges (SCOTUS and otherwise) was going to go. When the dems in late October 2016 talked about it, they were going to get rid of the filibuster for SCOTUS, but at the time, they thought they would win the Senate and the Presidency. We flipped it first.....

 

Jurisprudence is not about taking anyone's "side": its about rule of law. Period.
The law is not supposed to change based on your good or bad feelings on either party. Feelings are not ****ing law.

 

Democrats and republicans have irreconcilable differences. America should become multiple countries because of this.

 

May I suggest California? Somewhere near the fault line so we can keep the sane side on the mainland.

 

That's the fluffy stuff they say, but I doubt they really believe it. SCOTUS has to take a mostly vague document and apply it to every possible scenario, many of which the framers clearly did not anticipate. What led them to believe that money is speech and corporations are people? It's not just "rule of law."

 

We've done that dance before. Its not workable.

 

I do live in California. But California isn't a country.

 

Have you even read Citizen's United?

 

What do you even mean? You mean how Lincoln forced them to stay?

 

"Progressives" use the courts to advance their left-wing socialist agenda.
They know a conservative court systems block any hope of their agenda moving us toward an authoritarian socialist state; thus, they defend their hold on the courts with every ounce of their beings.

You may as well step between momma bear and her cubs.

 

Skimmed it but not recently. Doesn't matter though because it's clear our leaders receive campaign contributions, and they know where they come from, and they are lobbied. This should be seen as illegal bribery, not free speech.

 

Authoritarian? Which party is it that opposes gay marriage and supports strict penalties against drug users again?

 

So you think they would have voted Garland in if there was a vote? Because unless he would have gotten a majority they just saved time and paperwork.

 

Who is gonna pay for leech red states if California is not pumping in tax dollars? What will Thelma and Jed do?