Kavanaugh Confirmation

#11,652
#11,652
SIAP, but worth posting again for the lulz

Grassley taunts Bernie Sanders in salty response to Kavanaugh probe letter

In response, the 85-year-old Grassley delivered a stingingly sarcastic rebuttal, thanking Sanders for raising concerns in the “eleventh hour” and suggesting his inquiry must mean he is seriously considering Kavanaugh for the high court.

“As you know, on July 10, 2018, you stated ‘[w]e must mobilize the American people to defeat Judge Kavanaugh.’ This happened less than 24 hours after Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination was announced,” Grassley wrote. “As you also know, all Senators have had access to 307 judicial opinions Judge Kavanaugh wrote during his twelve years on the bench, over 500,000 pages of documents, over 40 hours of live testimony, and answers to more written questions than every prior Supreme Court nominee combined.”

Grassley went on to remind Sanders that despite the access to the materials, he “made a decision on this nomination in less than 24 hours.”

“Your public statements clearly reveal how unimportant it is to you to review any facts related to this nomination,” Grassley wrote. “So you can imagine my surprise at receiving your letter regarding the supplemental FBI background investigation.”

He sarcastically asked: “Am I to take from your letter that you are now undecided and willing to seriously engage with the Senate’s advice-and-consent constitutional duties related to the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States? ... If so, we should have a conversation about what information you need to assist you in making your decision, and I look forward to that conversation.”

Sanders has not yet responded to Grassley’s letter.
Click to expand...
 
#11,654
#11,654
I understand how people would perceive K's opening speech last week to either strike just the right chord of defiance, or be too defensive. I suspect that how one viewed it had a lot to do with the viewer's support or resistance to his nomination, to begin with.

And in that respect, my only problem with K's opening speech was that at several points it drifted from denial of the accusation to include transparent partisan pandering to the base. I had no problem with his defiant denials.

But when he went a step further and blamed it all on a partisan conspiracy going back to the Clintons, that seemed like the only purpose it served was to rally the partisan troops. He should have left that to the Senators in his corner, rather than put that out there. That was a mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and Hunerwadel
#11,657
#11,657
lawgator1 said:
I understand how people would perceive K's opening speech last week to either strike just the right chord of defiance, or be too defensive. I suspect that how one viewed it had a lot to do with the viewer's support or resistance to his nomination, to begin with.

And in that respect, my only problem with K's opening speech was that at several points it drifted from denial of the accusation to include transparent partisan pandering to the base. I had no problem with his defiant denials.

But when he went a step further and blamed it all on a partisan conspiracy going back to the Clintons, that seemed like the only purpose it served was to rally the partisan troops. He should have left that to the Senators in his corner, rather than put that out there. That was a mistake.
Click to expand...


He denied and called it what it was.
 
#11,658
#11,658
lawgator1 said:
I understand how people would perceive K's opening speech last week to either strike just the right chord of defiance, or be too defensive. I suspect that how one viewed it had a lot to do with the viewer's support or resistance to his nomination, to begin with.

And in that respect, my only problem with K's opening speech was that at several points it drifted from denial of the accusation to include transparent partisan pandering to the base. I had no problem with his defiant denials.

But when he went a step further and blamed it all on a partisan conspiracy going back to the Clintons, that seemed like the only purpose it served was to rally the partisan troops. He should have left that to the Senators in his corner, rather than put that out there. That was a mistake.
Click to expand...

Let's ask who's bankrolling the opposition to him.

Who's PAC started the website to stop him just hours after he was nominated.
 
#11,659
#11,659
Orange_Crush said:
luther never fails to fall into the traps that he sets. ALWAYS. It's hilarious and as sure as the sun coming up tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Here's Luther trying to set his own trap.
tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, BartW, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#11,662
#11,662
lawgator1 said:
He should have denied it. Talked about his life and accomplishments. How he would never do such a thing.

And left it to others to argue that the accusation was partisan-based and a conspiracy. But that's my opinion.
Click to expand...

Do you think SCOTUS votes are partisan in nature?

Do you feel he is judicially qualified to sit on the SCOTUS?
 
#11,665
#11,665
lawgator1 said:
To be argued by the GOP Senators and their proxies. Not by him.
Click to expand...

You know, as much as I hate to say it, the DNC actually brought good arguments (okay, maybe valid is a better term) against Gorsuch. They didn't agree with some of his case decisions, I can understand and appreciate that.

This time the committee is digging into his ****ing high school yearbooks. For real?

At what point do you even say "this is too much and ya'll need to move the eff on..."?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#11,669
#11,669
lawgator1 said:
He should have denied it. Talked about his life and accomplishments. How he would never do such a thing.

And left it to others to argue that the accusation was partisan-based and a conspiracy. But that's my opinion.
Click to expand...
Easy to say. I bet most of us could scrap together a good prepared statement for testimony but once you get in front of the cameras and the world and you're blatantly being falsely accused of a "crime"..we might go off the rails a bit.
 
#11,670
#11,670
lawgator1 said:
I think society on the whole benefits from hearing both sides of a controversy.

Unfortunately, this one has happened so abruptly and acutely that both sides have extremists taking their own pot shots, while the other side unfairly paints the extreme position a representative of the entire other side.

Example 1: the right portrays the entire left as exemplified by the extreme rhetoric of this Georgetown professor, cited above.

Example 2: the left portrays the entire right as exemplified by old comments by Trump Jr. dismissive of sexual assault, or a candidate who says even if true it should not matter.

It is aided by the respective media outlets that promote this stuff. You see the extreme of the right blasted on MSNBC as representative of the entire right. You see the extreme of the left blasted on Fox as representative of the entire left.

The fact is that neither the larger groups we might call left or right has such extreme views as ascribed to them by the other side. But that just the way things have become when we try to have a debate in this country.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that’s its never as bad as it’s made out to be , it’s the old saying about media that they never report on airplane landings just the crashes because the bad or extreme news is what sells . I will whole heartedly agree with you , you are 100% correct But .... that just doesn’t apply to K , it also and moreso applies to TRUMP . 😊
 
#11,673
#11,673
Grand Vol said:
You know, as much as I hate to say it, the DNC actually brought good arguments (okay, maybe valid is a better term) against Gorsuch. They didn't agree with some of his case decisions, I can understand and appreciate that.

This time the committee is digging into his ****ing high school yearbooks. For real?

At what point do you even say "this is too much and ya'll need to move the eff on..."?
Click to expand...

I do wonder if this is something much bigger and deeper than just a conservative leaning SC, R vs W, and petty partisanship. I try to keep the conspiracy theorist in me chained in the basement, and look at everything with a critical eye, but I wonder if this all out offensive has something to do with the draining of the swamp, deep state, treason and military tribunals. This SC interview is just too weird...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top