Supreme Court vacancy

The major fear mongering card the Dems have attempted to play is Roe vs Wade overturned. They have effectively fund raised off this garbage.

The big fucking problem is this...Kavanaugh has already passed the test with previous confirmation hearings: Kavanaugh has said that he believes Roe V. Wade is "binding precedent of the court" and would follow such a ruling and not move to undo the landmark abortion case.

Anything reporting something other than that is simply fake news...the media or Dems.

Well, he has said that the SC set it, not necessarily that it passes constitutional tests. WHEN you are an appellate judge, the SC saying it makes it fact. When you want to become a SC court justice your view on the underlying cases and how the constitution and precedence was applied DOES play a factor. He won't get away with simply saying it's settled law and moving on, without a lot of justification of his past cases that found exceptions to it.

These are the games that are played when you steal a seat. It’s all for show, he’ll get through.

I am just curious, how long will the stolen seat card be played. The seat that was stolen, and again I think Garland should have gotten a vote, was Scalia's. Scalia's, while stolen, was not really an expected seat to be released before Pres Obama's term ended. It was a tragedy that Antonia Scalia died when he did, and in the end, he was replaced by someone who likely votes along the same lines as he would have, as opposed to someone with diametrically opposed views.

So while it's a cute narrative about a stolen seat, how long and how much validity do you think it will carry going forward. Or is it just going to be an ongoing liberal thing?

I am just curious, how long will the stolen seat card be played. The seat that was stolen, and again I think Garland should have gotten a vote, was Scalia's. Scalia's, while stolen, was not really an expected seat to be released before Pres Obama's term ended. It was a tragedy that Antonia Scalia died when he did, and in the end, he was replaced by someone who likely votes along the same lines as he would have, as opposed to someone with diametrically opposed views.

So while it's a cute narrative about a stolen seat, how long and how much validity do you think it will carry going forward. Or is it just going to be an ongoing liberal thing?

Seriously?

Shoe on the other foot and the Dems pulled this stunt on a Republican President, how long would you keep going with this so called "cute narrative".

Stealing the seat that was 110% Obama's choice to make was pure garbage, and it should always be remembered that way.

Seriously?

Shoe on the other foot and the Dems pulled this stunt on a Republican President, how long would you keep going with this so called "cute narrative".

Stealing the seat that was 110% Obama's choice to make was pure garbage, and it should always be remembered that way.

I get that it will always be remembered as a stolen seat. High school history books will likely have a chapter on the Stolen seat. I agree it was a stolen seat.

But that does that make every seat from now on part of the "games that are played". Or just Trump's presidency? Or is it as long as McConnell is in the Senate? Or do you expect that at some point the Republican caucus will go, hey you got us, let's strip Gorsuch of his seat and give it to Garland.

Don't get me wrong, if the Dems take the senate, and the shoe is on the other foot, you will not hear me complain, I promise, the Republicans made their bed. But right now, it's just a narrative that means nothing in terms of affecting Kavanaugh's path to confirmation.

Right now I'd say it's still pretty fresh so the Dems aren't going to let it go, so the games continue. Will it ever end? I'm sure there will be a whole new ballgame to play after this one.

Right now I'd say it's still pretty fresh so the Dems aren't going to let it go, so the games continue. Will it ever end? I'm sure there will be a whole new ballgame to play after this one.Would you agree that McConnell and the Republicans took a huge risk on the Garland nomination move and could easily have had HRC or Sanders making these appointments?

Would you agree that McConnell and the Republicans took a huge risk on the Garland nomination move and could easily have had HRC or Sanders making these appointments?


They did, just as the Dems took a huge chance by assuming it would be HRC making the picks and not putting up a bigger fight over the block

Actually no one is talking the stolen seat right now. Channel 4 in DC just had a guy on and he brought up a good point about the Mueller investigation and how this pick had already said he believes a president can not be charged with a crime and that could very well be a factor pro or against him in the nominating process.



Seems the theory is picking up steam


https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-scarborough-make-no-mistake-trump-only-picked-brett-kavanaugh-to-protect-himself


Practically in the same breath Tuesday morning, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough both praised Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s “character” and argued that by choosing him to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Donald Trump proved himself to be “the most self-serving” president of our time.

The Morning Joe host was referring to a 2009 article Kavanaugh wrote for the Minnesota Law Review that argued for Congress to pass a law exempting sitting presidents from “criminal prosecution and investigation.” As many observers have acknowledged, this position could have major implications on the outcome of the Russia investigation.

The slime is coming to the top,as I said before the trump cult says fuck you America.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/419defbc-6d37-38ac-a6f8-d8a010975fc6/ss_white-house-doesn%E2%80%99t-deny.html



During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning, White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “received assurances” from President Trump that if he retired, Judge Brett Kavanaugh — one of Kennedy’s former clerks — would be nominated to be his replacement.
Asked repeatedly if some sort of deal between Trump and Kennedy was struck before Kennedy announced his retirement, Shah dodged, saying things like “I’m not going to read out private conversations that Justice Kennedy had with either members of the White House or the president,” and, “Justice Kennedy can speak for himself.” But what Shah didn’t do is deny the NBC report


The theory seems to be picking up steam.............


https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/0af2e765-ee63-3485-b424-875afa4b0ab1/ss_joe-scarborough%3A-%E2%80%98make-no.html

The Morning Joe host was referring to a 2009 article Kavanaugh wrote for the Minnesota Law Review that argued for Congress to pass a law exempting sitting presidents from “criminal prosecution and investigation.” As many observers have acknowledged, this position could have major implications on the outcome of the Russia investigation. Noting that Kavanaugh wrote the article “at the dawn of the Obama administration,”

The slime is coming to the top,as I said before the trump cult says fuck you America.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/419defbc-6d37-38ac-a6f8-d8a010975fc6/ss_white-house-doesn%E2%80%99t-deny.html



During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning, White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “received assurances” from President Trump that if he retired, Judge Brett Kavanaugh — one of Kennedy’s former clerks — would be nominated to be his replacement.
Asked repeatedly if some sort of deal between Trump and Kennedy was struck before Kennedy announced his retirement, Shah dodged, saying things like “I’m not going to read out private conversations that Justice Kennedy had with either members of the White House or the president,” and, “Justice Kennedy can speak for himself.” But what Shah didn’t do is deny the NBC report.

How is it wrong for a sitting president to ask a resigning Justice who he would favor for his replacement?