WWTBAM Bored

Do the pudendum chapeaux protect from the sky falling? Asking for a friend.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I'll get over it when we get the seat back. And not before. --Bob

bob-tel. Garland would NOT have been confirmed even if he had hearings. We saved a whole lot of money. (Well not actually, they just overspent it on something else.) Your side would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed, AND YOU KNOW IT. Your comrades ensured that years ago during the Bork hearings. Besides, the SC should not be politically driven. It's a travesty that it is. But regardless, it was not your seat.

But we've discussed this before. I know you don't read any posts by people you disagree with. I've proven it.

Bork got hearings. Bork got a vote. If Garland had received hearings and a vote, I wouldn't be crying foul.

McConnell didn't refuse Garland a hearing because he knew Garland wouldn't be confirmed. He refused Garland a hearing because he knew damn well that Garland would be confirmed. Too many Republicans in tight Senate races would have been forced by their constituents to vote yes. And if not, then one way or another, their votes would have made them accountable to their constituents. That's how the process is supposed to work.

I don't think Democrats would have voted down a centrist Republican nominee (one in the mold of, say, Kennedy) if the positions had been reversed, but I may be wrong about that. But I am certain that they would have afforded such a nominee a hearing. We'll never know for sure, though, because McConnell's theft of a seat changed the rules and I don't see that change reversing itself any time soon.

In 2012 I voted for the candidate I wanted appointing Justices for the next four years. My candidate won. McConnell stole my vote. I want it back, and I won't shut up about it until I get it back. --Bob

Yes, I forgot that democrats are the most reasonable, incorruptible people in the world. (The Echo Chamber World that you SSS and BJ live in, anyway.) That's why Reid unilaterally changed the rules on confirmations in the first place. I want back the seats that Reid stole!!!! Nyah Nyah. And why Schumer sabotaged himself on this nomination.

Consider shutting up anyway, just out of general consideration to other people that don't live in the echo chamber.

elwoodblues wrote:

Kavanaugh was and is well-liked and respected, they said, “a thoughtful classmate and loyal friend."

Nice to know that someone who is about to help overturn the Voting Rights Act is a good guy.

Seriously, what. the. fuck. I thought you were more reasonable.

Beebs52 wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:

Kavanaugh was and is well-liked and respected, they said, “a thoughtful classmate and loyal friend."

Nice to know that someone who is about to help overturn the Voting Rights Act is a good guy.

Seriously, what. the. fuck. I thought you were more reasonable.

Okay, that may have been a bit of hyperbole. I am just concerned about the direction in which the country is going.

We already have voter ids. Many versions. Jeezaree

Beebs52 wrote:We already have voter ids. Many versions. Jeezaree

And not one of them prevents people from voting by mail. Their purpose and effect are to hold down the turnout of groups that traditionally vote Democratic.

Why is it, for instance, that Texas accepts gun licenses but not student IDs? I think it's to make it harder for students to vote and easier for gun owners to vote. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:We already have voter ids. Many versions. Jeezaree

And not one of them prevents people from voting by mail. Their purpose and effect are to hold down the turnout of groups that traditionally vote Democratic.

Why is it, for instance, that Texas accepts gun licenses but not student IDs? I think it's to make it harder for students to vote and easier for gun owners to vote. --Bob

States' rights, whatever. Honestly, why would I want your criteria/list? Tiring

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:We already have voter ids. Many versions. Jeezaree

And not one of them prevents people from voting by mail. Their purpose and effect are to hold down the turnout of groups that traditionally vote Democratic.

Why is it, for instance, that Texas accepts gun licenses but not student IDs? I think it's to make it harder for students to vote and easier for gun owners to vote. --Bob

States' rights, whatever. Honestly, why would I want your criteria/list? Tiring

Because you care if eligible voters are being deprived of the fundamental right to vote. Which is exactly what's happening.

In North Carolina, the courts found that the Legislature "with almost surgical precision" intentionally drafted its Voter ID law to target minority voters, deeming those IDs more likely to be used by minority voters to be invalid while those less likely to be used by minority voters valid (among other tactics). We know they did this because Republican legislative leaders requested, and received, breakdowns by race of who used which type of ID, and then crafted their law to exclude the types of ID used mostly by minority voters. --Bob

It was struck down, so, yay? Done

Beebs52 wrote:It was struck down, so, yay? Done

But the elected representatives who intentionally targeted minorities are still in office, so not done. And the Texas Voter ID requirements are still in litigation. The Fifth Circuit (probably the most conservative in the nation) has problems with them. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:It was struck down, so, yay? Done

But the elected representatives who intentionally targeted minorities are still in office, so not done. And the Texas Voter ID requirements are still in litigation. The Fifth Circuit (probably the most conservative in the nation) has problems with them. --Bob

Oh well.

It looks like the Committee’s Republicans are playing games to hide information. They designated a bunch of documents as Committee Confidential, which means they can’t be publicly discussed or disclosed. The potential penalty for breaching that confidentiality is expulsion from the Senate (although that takes a two-thirds vote so it’s not happening).

Some of those documents have leaked. And Senator Cory Booker has released others. For the life of me I can’t see any basis for hiding these documents from the American people. On the other hand, I can see why Kavanaugh’s advocates wouldn’t want them released. One set gives a clear answer to whether he considers Roe v. Wade settled law (he doesn’t), and another expresses his view about affirmative action (he seems to think it’s almost always unconstitutional).

Whether you agree with his views or not, there’s no reason to misuse confidentiality to hide those views from the public. Especially in connection with the most consequential Supreme Court nomination of our lifetimes. What do Republicans have against transparency? Could it be that they know the public will vote against them if the truth is revealed? —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:It looks like the Committee’s Republicans are playing games to hide information. They designated a bunch of documents as Committee Confidential, which means they can’t be publicly discussed or disclosed. The potential penalty for breaching that confidentiality is expulsion from the Senate (although that takes a two-thirds vote so it’s not happening).

Some of those documents have leaked. And Senator Cory Booker has released others. For the life of me I can’t see any basis for hiding these documents from the American people. On the other hand, I can see why Kavanaugh’s advocates wouldn’t want them released. One set gives a clear answer to whether he considers Roe v. Wade settled law (he doesn’t), and another expresses his view about affirmative action (he seems to think it’s almost always unconstitutional).

Whether you agree with his views or not, there’s no reason to misuse confidentiality to hide those views from the public. Especially in connection with the most consequential Supreme Court nomination of our lifetimes. What do Republicans have against transparency? Could it be that they know the public will vote against them if the truth is revealed? —Bob

Docs were cleared for release before Booker's grandstand.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It looks like the Committee’s Republicans are playing games to hide information. They designated a bunch of documents as Committee Confidential, which means they can’t be publicly discussed or disclosed. The potential penalty for breaching that confidentiality is expulsion from the Senate (although that takes a two-thirds vote so it’s not happening).

Some of those documents have leaked. And Senator Cory Booker has released others. For the life of me I can’t see any basis for hiding these documents from the American people. On the other hand, I can see why Kavanaugh’s advocates wouldn’t want them released. One set gives a clear answer to whether he considers Roe v. Wade settled law (he doesn’t), and another expresses his view about affirmative action (he seems to think it’s almost always unconstitutional).

Whether you agree with his views or not, there’s no reason to misuse confidentiality to hide those views from the public. Especially in connection with the most consequential Supreme Court nomination of our lifetimes. What do Republicans have against transparency? Could it be that they know the public will vote against them if the truth is revealed? —Bob

Docs were cleared for release before Booker's grandstand.

There are more to come. One newly released email shows Kavanaugh twice gave false testimony under oath about his knowledge of warrantless wiretapping.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It looks like the Committee’s Republicans are playing games to hide information. They designated a bunch of documents as Committee Confidential, which means they can’t be publicly discussed or disclosed. The potential penalty for breaching that confidentiality is expulsion from the Senate (although that takes a two-thirds vote so it’s not happening).

Some of those documents have leaked. And Senator Cory Booker has released others. For the life of me I can’t see any basis for hiding these documents from the American people. On the other hand, I can see why Kavanaugh’s advocates wouldn’t want them released. One set gives a clear answer to whether he considers Roe v. Wade settled law (he doesn’t), and another expresses his view about affirmative action (he seems to think it’s almost always unconstitutional).

Whether you agree with his views or not, there’s no reason to misuse confidentiality to hide those views from the public. Especially in connection with the most consequential Supreme Court nomination of our lifetimes. What do Republicans have against transparency? Could it be that they know the public will vote against them if the truth is revealed? —Bob

Docs were cleared for release before Booker's grandstand.

There are more to come. One newly released email shows Kavanaugh twice gave false testimony under oath about his knowledge of warrantless wiretapping.

And, regrettably, none of it will amount to a hill of beans. The railroad is on the track and has a full head of steam.

I question whether any of you have been watching, understand context or just don't care because he's a Trump appointee.

Beebs52 wrote:I question whether any of you have been watching, understand context or just don't care because he's a Trump appointee.

Imagine if every criminal got to pick his judge.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:I question whether any of you have been watching, understand context or just don't care because he's a Trump appointee.

Imagine if every criminal got to pick his judge.

Imagine if you dint live in bileland.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It looks like the Committee’s Republicans are playing games to hide information. They designated a bunch of documents as Committee Confidential, which means they can’t be publicly discussed or disclosed. The potential penalty for breaching that confidentiality is expulsion from the Senate (although that takes a two-thirds vote so it’s not happening).

Some of those documents have leaked. And Senator Cory Booker has released others. For the life of me I can’t see any basis for hiding these documents from the American people. On the other hand, I can see why Kavanaugh’s advocates wouldn’t want them released. One set gives a clear answer to whether he considers Roe v. Wade settled law (he doesn’t), and another expresses his view about affirmative action (he seems to think it’s almost always unconstitutional).

Whether you agree with his views or not, there’s no reason to misuse confidentiality to hide those views from the public. Especially in connection with the most consequential Supreme Court nomination of our lifetimes. What do Republicans have against transparency? Could it be that they know the public will vote against them if the truth is revealed? —Bob

Docs were cleared for release before Booker's grandstand.

Misses the point. Why were they ever designated confidential in the first place? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It looks like the Committee’s Republicans are playing games to hide information. They designated a bunch of documents as Committee Confidential, which means they can’t be publicly discussed or disclosed. The potential penalty for breaching that confidentiality is expulsion from the Senate (although that takes a two-thirds vote so it’s not happening).

Some of those documents have leaked. And Senator Cory Booker has released others. For the life of me I can’t see any basis for hiding these documents from the American people. On the other hand, I can see why Kavanaugh’s advocates wouldn’t want them released. One set gives a clear answer to whether he considers Roe v. Wade settled law (he doesn’t), and another expresses his view about affirmative action (he seems to think it’s almost always unconstitutional).

Whether you agree with his views or not, there’s no reason to misuse confidentiality to hide those views from the public. Especially in connection with the most consequential Supreme Court nomination of our lifetimes. What do Republicans have against transparency? Could it be that they know the public will vote against them if the truth is revealed? —Bob

Docs were cleared for release before Booker's grandstand.

Misses the point. Why were they ever designated confidential in the first place? --Bob

Who knows. Let us know when your sources find out.

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It looks like the Committee’s Republicans are playing games to hide information. They designated a bunch of documents as Committee Confidential, which means they can’t be publicly discussed or disclosed. The potential penalty for breaching that confidentiality is expulsion from the Senate (although that takes a two-thirds vote so it’s not happening).

Some of those documents have leaked. And Senator Cory Booker has released others. For the life of me I can’t see any basis for hiding these documents from the American people. On the other hand, I can see why Kavanaugh’s advocates wouldn’t want them released. One set gives a clear answer to whether he considers Roe v. Wade settled law (he doesn’t), and another expresses his view about affirmative action (he seems to think it’s almost always unconstitutional).

Whether you agree with his views or not, there’s no reason to misuse confidentiality to hide those views from the public. Especially in connection with the most consequential Supreme Court nomination of our lifetimes. What do Republicans have against transparency? Could it be that they know the public will vote against them if the truth is revealed? —Bob

Docs were cleared for release before Booker's grandstand.

Misses the point. Why were they ever designated confidential in the first place? --Bob

Don't worry. The documents are coming. They're in the queue, right after the documents the House requested from the DOJ about the Russia probe. Shouldn't be long now.

Whoa, just heard the hard drives containing Kavanaugh's emails were accidentally formatted, left in a vat of sulphuric acid overnight, and unfortunately smashed with a sledge hammer.

Maybe the russians have a copy.

And then there's this.

Here's the short version. During the Bush Administration, confidential strategy information relating to judicial confirmations was stolen from Democratic servers. The content made it highly obvious that the material was not intended for release to the Administration, and the hacking was discovered. A couple of years later, after the hacking had come to light, Kavanaugh testified under oath during his own confirmation hearings for the D.C. Circuit. He said under oath, repeatedly, that he'd never seen any of the stolen material.

That testimony was false. Records now in the Judiciary Committee's possession demonstrate that Kavanaugh in fact had, and discussed the contents of, the stolen material. So we now know that he committed perjury during his confirmation hearings to the D.C. Circuit. And remember, Kavanaugh said that Bill Clinton should be impeached for lying at a civil deposition. All I ask is for Kavanaugh to live by the same standard he applied to his political opponents. --Bob

Here is an e-mail (released yesterday) that Kavanaugh received on the subject. It starts, "I have a friend who is a mole on the left."

Remember, his testimony in 2004 is that he never saw any of the stolen information. His testimony this time around was that maybe he got them, but he had no idea at the time they were stolen. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Here is an e-mail (released yesterday) that Kavanaugh received on the subject. It starts, "I have a friend who is a mole on the left."

Remember, his testimony in 2004 is that he never saw any of the stolen information. His testimony this time around was that maybe he got them, but he had no idea at the time they were stolen. --Bob

Well, it looks like he lied. The dems found something! If that is a disqualification for public office, I doubt we'd have anyone qualified to serve in the federal government, which would be alright by me. Which doesn't excuse it, but it shows what a frickin game it is in Washington. This group of corrupt politicians pointing fingers at another group of dirty politicians, all of them getting rich and buying power at our expense. And you have no comment at all as to the content of the email. Warren Buffet anonymously giving 20 million to PP to influence who will be a judge. What do they use that money for, anyway?

Yeah, bob-tel, elect democrats and we'll have a pure as snow utopia and everyone will be whistling zippity doo-dah out their asshole. Right.....

We need a Convention of the States. Limit terms on Congress and on the Supreme Court. Senators chosen by the state legislatures, not by popular vote.