Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation Hearing Now with Poll

[Grinning Dragon]

They pop up like they have tourettes and utter mindless bullshit.
I do get a kick seeing the capitol police just shove them out the door.

I am more impressed the committee chair allows it.

I'm thinking the chair figures it would be less of delay to let them spout nonsense and let the capitol police yank them out of the room than to get into a tit for tat with the rabble.
Only other thing that I could think of, would be to only allow staff, press and guests and keep the public out, sorta like a closed session.

[Shofercia]

I am more impressed the committee chair allows it.

I'm thinking the chair figures it would be less of delay to let them spout nonsense and let the capitol police yank them out of the room than to get into a tit for tat with the rabble.
Only other thing that I could think of, would be to only allow staff, press and guests and keep the public out, sorta like a closed session.

It's not politically expedient to deny the public entry, and this nomination's about politics. That said, I agree with you in that the chair probably figures that it would be less of delay to let them spout nonsense and let the capitol police yank them out of the room than to get into a tit for tat with them.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm thinking the chair figures it would be less of delay to let them spout nonsense and let the capitol police yank them out of the room than to get into a tit for tat with the rabble.
Only other thing that I could think of, would be to only allow staff, press and guests and keep the public out, sorta like a closed session.

Nahh. Then the politicalss get to grandstand and spout even more BS. The disruptions have broken the flow of a few of them. Never mind if it's annoying Ted; it's worth it

[ImperialistSalvia]

I am more impressed the committee chair allows it.

I'm thinking the chair figures it would be less of delay to let them spout nonsense and let the capitol police yank them out of the room than to get into a tit for tat with the rabble.
Only other thing that I could think of, would be to only allow staff, press and guests and keep the public out, sorta like a closed session.

I see it as part of a grander political strategy-- allowing the Democrats to revel in their mistakes. For the DNC it's a sort of bandwagon effect by showcasing how many people are opposed to Trump to up turnout this November. I'm not sure how well it will play out since they effectively did the same thing in 2016

[Pope Joan]

I see very little relevant objection to the nomination; questions of political statements when he was in the GW Bush administration have nothing to do with his capability or performance as a judge.

We do not nominate judges so that they can act like politicians.

[The Black Forrest]

I see very little relevant objection to the nomination; questions of political statements when he was in the GW Bush administration have nothing to do with his capability or performance as a judge.

We do not nominate judges so that they can act like politicians.

RvW is precedence. Email has comment over it can be overturned. Won't answer questions on that.

I am not liking his great details over superfluous stuff and non-answers over important stuff. He doesn't have an opinion and yet documents say otherwise.

[Salandriagado]

I see very little relevant objection to the nomination; questions of political statements when he was in the GW Bush administration have nothing to do with his capability or performance as a judge.

We do not nominate judges so that they can act like politicians.

Perjury isn't relevant to his suitability to be a judge now?

[Hakons]

I see very little relevant objection to the nomination; questions of political statements when he was in the GW Bush administration have nothing to do with his capability or performance as a judge.

We do not nominate judges so that they can act like politicians.

RvW is precedence. Email has comment over it can be overturned. Won't answer questions on that.

I am not liking his great details over superfluous stuff and non-answers over important stuff. He doesn't have an opinion and yet documents say otherwise.

It is factually true that previous court decisions can be overturned. The horror?

[Valrifell]

RvW is precedence. Email has comment over it can be overturned. Won't answer questions on that.

I am not liking his great details over superfluous stuff and non-answers over important stuff. He doesn't have an opinion and yet documents say otherwise.

It is factually true that previous court decisions can be overturned. The horror?

Read the subtext then get back to us.

[Greed and Death]

I see very little relevant objection to the nomination; questions of political statements when he was in the GW Bush administration have nothing to do with his capability or performance as a judge.

We do not nominate judges so that they can act like politicians.

Perjury isn't relevant to his suitability to be a judge now?

Being BCCed does not make you involved in the content of the email. The Mens rea for Perjury is a high bar the idea that failing to remember being BCCed on a email means you have committed perjury is pretty steep. Also being carbon copied on a an email about a judicial nominee does not mean you were involved in the nomination. He said he was not involved not recused or fire walled.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

I disagree with the method to appoint supreme court justices, the fact that someone who had less support from voters can get in (barring the most supported one being a bigot and/or fascist), the nominee, and the fact that more direct democracy could not be used for this. But, they are being nominated the legal and legit way, and so must be confirmed as soon as possible so as to prevent the government from failing even more at pretending to function as it is intended to regarding such things.

[Mystic Warriors]

I'm starting to wonder if the people should vote for supreme court and not nominated by the President and voted by Congress

[The Black Forrest]

RvW is precedence. Email has comment over it can be overturned. Won't answer questions on that.

I am not liking his great details over superfluous stuff and non-answers over important stuff. He doesn't have an opinion and yet documents say otherwise.

It is factually true that previous court decisions can be overturned. The horror?

Beside the point but ok.

We can avoid the time loss by not placing such a person.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

I'm starting to wonder if the people should vote for supreme court and not nominated by the President and voted by Congress

What about having that and people voting to do the supreme court's job, but possibly allowing the justices to sway the results ten percentage points either way if they all can agree?

[Greed and Death]

I'm starting to wonder if the people should vote for supreme court and not nominated by the President and voted by Congress

The politics of elected judges in the states scares me more than this circus does.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm starting to wonder if the people should vote for supreme court and not nominated by the President and voted by Congress

Oh hell no.

The trumpests picking SCOTUS? *shudders*
The liberals picking SCOTUS? *shudders*

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

I'm starting to wonder if the people should vote for supreme court and not nominated by the President and voted by Congress

Oh hell no.

The trumpests picking SCOTUS? *shudders*
The liberals picking SCOTUS? *shudders*

Would you be content with a third party such as say... the 'founders' choosing whom? Or would you prefer someone who is not in favour of tarring and feathering and slavery to decide?

[Hakons]

It is factually true that previous court decisions can be overturned. The horror?

Read the subtext then get back to us.

The subtext? I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean by this. Like reading in between the lines? It shouldn't be surprising that he refuses to show an opinion on Roe v. Wade, since 1) Senators aren't supposed to ask litmus test questions like that, and 2) nominees aren't supposed to answer litmus test questions.

[Gig em Aggies]

Read the subtext then get back to us.

The subtext? I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean by this. Like reading in between the lines? It shouldn't be surprising that he refuses to show an opinion on Roe v. Wade, since 1) Senators aren't supposed to ask litmus test questions like that, and 2) nominees aren't supposed to answer litmus test questions.

You also forgot that senators aren't supposed to do what Cory booker did during the senate confirmation hearing.

[Liriena]

Dressing as disgusting degenerates

Mmmmm... love me some unironic use of the word "degenerate".

[Hakons]

Anyway, this hearing so far has been embarrassing. Our politics look more like hysteria than government. The chairman of the judiciary committee was interrupted in his opening remarks by one of his senatorial colleagues. Protesters continue to to disrupt and disrespect the senators, the nominee, and truly the long held process of evaluating a Supreme Court nominee. There's nothing noble in stopping democratically elected officials performing their civic functions. One is not a martyr if one ignores common decency and disrupts democratic functions.

Truly, why is there such a fuss now? Gorsuch had many detractors, but there was never this amount of blatant disregard for decency.

[Greed and Death]

Oh hell no.

The trumpests picking SCOTUS? *shudders*
The liberals picking SCOTUS? *shudders*

Would you be content with a third party such as say... the 'founders' choosing whom? Or would you prefer someone who is not in favour of tarring and feathering and slavery to decide?

Fine. I will do it. I will be the next Justice.

[Galloism]

Would you be content with a third party such as say... the 'founders' choosing whom? Or would you prefer someone who is not in favour of tarring and feathering and slavery to decide?

Fine. I will do it. I will be the next Justice.

You can take this however you like, but you'd probably be better than at least 2 of the people up there. Maybe 4, if I'm generous.

[Gig em Aggies]

Anyway, this hearing so far has been embarrassing. Our politics look more like hysteria than government. The chairman of the judiciary committee was interrupted in his opening remarks by one of his senatorial colleagues. Protesters continue to to disrupt and disrespect the senators, the nominee, and truly the long held process of evaluating a Supreme Court nominee. There's nothing noble in stopping democratically elected officials performing their civic functions. One is not a martyr if one ignores common decency and disrupts democratic functions.

Truly, why is there such a fuss now? Gorsuch had many detractors, but there was never this amount of blatant disregard for decency.

Well did you expect anything less from the lefties and there sjw counter parts? It's like they believe the saying "If I can't have it my way then no one can have it their way" better yet the left it is like this --->

[Gig em Aggies]

Would you be content with a third party such as say... the 'founders' choosing whom? Or would you prefer someone who is not in favour of tarring and feathering and slavery to decide?

Fine. I will do it. I will be the next Justice.

Over my dead body I'll be the new Justice