You can try to convince yourself that the democrats are acting unreasonably – and in many ways they are – but the republicans, since the Red State effort, have increasingly used legal but ultimately undemocratic methods to undermine the will of the majority of Americans. Sooner or later, there will be a reckoning.
I have not seen anything “honorable” about Kavanaugh or the republicans.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa you lose.
“Shilly” Ramirez doing his bit to further the GOP agenda. No mention of course of Republicans refusing to give Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland even the courtesy of a hearing.
Poor republican snowflakes. Twenty years of dishing out slime and slander. Now they cry when people ask mean questions.
Now what reason would Democrats have to be upset, hmm?
Yes, no surprise, Mr. Ramirez wants Trump for life like Kavanaugh. Will Don Jr. inherit the presidency, I wonder.
There is no surprise that Nominees to the Supreme Court are reluctant to give their reviews on constitutional issues. This is particularly true when the nominee of a president faces the Senate where the opposition party is in the majority. The politicization of the Supreme Court began in 1987 at the hearings of Robert Bork. Prior to that time the Senate would defer to the president so long as the candidate was supremely qualified. In the case of Robert Bork, there is likely never to have been a candidate so well qualified. He was a noted Yale Law School professor. He was a legal scholar. He was the Solicitor General of the United States, the advocate of United States in Supreme Court matters. He has a judge of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the most important federal appeals court.
Three Republicans of 45 voted against him as did all 55 Democrats.
Though his confirmation was denied, he provided the single greatest public discourse on the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. At no time before or since (save the Federalist Papers) was the public able to learn what the Constitution and cases thereon actually mean and how one jurist provided his unbridled commentary as to the rationale of decisions over the history of the Supreme Court.
His honesty and forthrightness brought those qualities to an end for future nominees. His legal writings, expressing his opinions as to a myriad of issues, have caused all future potential nominees to be at least circumspect as to opinions to be shared.
The sad day when he was not confirmed has led to the mud-slinging and question dodging show which goes on today, regardless of the party.
I might suggest that a candidate for the presidency who urges the crowd to not be so gentle in expelling a heckler might be a case of using “the mob to bully their opposition.” I might suggest that, although he was only joking (he said), that a candidate who suggests some of the NRA people might take action against his opponent in the election might be using using “the mob to bully their opposition.” I might suggest that a candidate who belittles a Muslim mother of an American soldier killed in action to be using “the mob to bully their opposition.” I might suggest that a president of the United States who states at a rally that if he’s impeached, it’s the fault of his own base to be using “the mob to bully their opposition.” I might suggest that a president of the United States who calls the press an enemy of the people to be using “the mob to bully their opposition.” The list is rather extensive, Mr. Locke. But I suppose, in your view, it’s a case of just whom is using “the mob to bully their opposition” that are the bad guys.
The End game on this is not going to be pretty. Will the Dems Impeach Neil Gorsuch if they take they Senate? why not? If the Court overturns Roe and doesn’t overturn Citizens United why should they not Impeach Gorsuch. what do they have to loose?
Better treatment than Merrick Garland received at the hands of Mitch McConnell.
Ah yes… Robert Bork, nixon’s henchman. Bork betrayed the United States of America when he had every chance to help save it. He fired the man investigating Watergate.
On the night of Saturday, October 20, 1973, President nixon ordered Cox’s firing. However, the person with authority to dismiss Cox, nixon’s Attorney General Elliot Richardson, refused to carry out the order. Instead, Richardson resigned. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, then became acting attorney general, and also refused to obey the order. Ruckelshaus resigned too. That left Robert Bork, the solicitor general, as the highest-ranking official in the Justice Department. Bork carried out nixon’s order and dismissed Cox.
This was a very public, and very brazen, attempt to derail efforts to investigate his crimes. The public reaction would force nixon to appoint another special prosecutor to replace Cox, and accelerated congressional interest in impeaching the president. A president had never brazenly fired an official charged with investigating the president’s conduct before.
Senior administration officials soon started resigning. The attorney general, Richard Kleindienst, nixon’s chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, and domestic policy adviser John Ehrlichman all resigned, and nixon fired White House counsel John Dean.
The reaction to the events was furious. It felt like we were in a banana republic. It was a major turning point in the scandal, and helped make impeachment feel like a real possibility.
The newspapers carried banner headlines. Within two days, 150,000 telegrams had arrived in the capital, the largest concentrated volume in the history of Western Union. Deans of the most prestigious law schools in the country demanded that Congress commence an impeachment inquiry. By the following Tuesday, 44 separate Watergate-related bills had been introduced in the House. Twenty-two bills called for an impeachment investigation.
It’s odd that no one asked him about his obsession with the Vince Foster suicide lo-o-o-ong after everyone else had conceded the obvious. Or for that matter his obsession with Monica L.’s private parts.
May 31, 2016
May 24, 2016