What would be truly shocking is if any Republican were to whine about anything Kavanaugh does. Buncha mindless lockstepping drones.
Kavanaugh’s lies during his hearings are a fact, not an opinion.
And I’m not talking about Dr. Ford’s allegations. I’m talking about all the other stuff that has been proven false.
Your attempt at insult by referencing so-called “Hillary worshippers” is particularly funny given that the Republican Party seems to have abandoned its core principles and beliefs so it doesn’t lose support from the “Trump worshippers.”
That’s the tactic called “how right wingers talk about Democrats.” See for example, “long-form birth certificate.”
If you disagree with the premise, then address the premise itself rather than launch a vacuous ad hominem attack. Kavanaugh is the one who has done all the whining.
This has nothing to do with party but rather a judicial candidate who was given a free pass on a questionable past.
BTW I am a centrist Democrat but the farthest thing from a Hillary worshiper. I would have voted Republican in the last election if the Republicans had not put up a candidate that was not totally laughable, and in the election two before that if the Republicans hadn’t put up a rodeo clown as the running mate.
I couldn’t help but notice how many mindless, lockstepping drones had already said that they would maintain their party’s line by not voting for a Republican SCOTUS nominee before Kavanaugh’s name had even been suggested.
Meanwhile, Kavanaugh has hired four women as his law clerks. Good for him. It was his choice after all, and not the internets.
This is called the McConnell Rule, which he rolled out that he was going to oppose everything Obama did before he was even inaugurated.
Sure, I don’t care too much about that. However, you must admit that if Ginsburg did that, the righties would be complaining that white men can never get a fair shake anymore.
It’s actually a common talking point on the right that all but one of Ginsburg’s clerks has been white.
It was Biden’s rule before that.
The one thing we know about Ginsburg is that with her on the court white clerks will have some place to work.
Actually, that’s a right-wing fantasy.
You might as well say that there’s a Cotton Rule in the Senate that empowers members of one party to sabotage diplomatic negotiations.
I disagree, but here is Biden’s speech (6:26 YouTube video) so that our readers can decide for themselves:
Feel free to add any editorial comments you feel are appropriate.
A-ha. So if someone makes a speech, it is a “rule.” Even if the speaker says something like, “We should seriously consider doing X,” that, in your opinion, constitutes a rule.
Does this opinion of yours extend to other matters? Like, when Trump told a crowd to beat up protesters, is that now “the Trump Rule?” If I, as someone who has no rulemaking capabilities whatsoever, declare that Google must hire more purple-haired rodents to be software engineers, do you consider that “the Ravenman Rule?”
The fact is that the so-called Biden Rule is a figment of some people’s imagination. Even McConnell now thinks it doesn’t exist.
Previously you said this:
Did you forget?
If McConnell making a public statement that he intends to do X counts as formulation of the “McConnell Rule”, then what Biden did certainly counts as formulation of the “Biden Rule”. If you want to argue that merely making a speech / statement doesn’t constitute formulating a rule, then you’ve only got yourself, in your previous post, to argue with.
None of these, of course, are formal rules governing the Senate. It’s just people in positions of power announcing their intentions. Someone else (you in this case) dubbed it “the McConnell Rule”, and if that label is valid, then “Biden Rule” for Joe Biden doing something similar certainly seems valid.
To make a rule, one needs to have some means to codify or enforce the rule. McConnell does, and he in fact carried out.
While Biden was an influential senator at that time, it was only George Mitchell who had any power to carry out the idea that Biden was tinkering with. That’s not a “rule” in any sense of the word, and it’s literally nothing more than a gross distortion of “pants on fire” magnitude for certain partisans to try to blame a terrible idea carried out by their leader on anyone else.
To put the shoe on the other foot, Bill Frist often toyed with the idea of getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations, mostly at the behest of Trent Lott. Harry Reid actually carried it out. Reid’s actions would make it the Reid Rule, if you are so inclined to call it that – not the Lott Rule, nor the Frist Rule. If I said it was the Lott Rule, I’d be lying through my teeth for obvious reasons: it’s factually untrue and it is merely political point-scoring.
What I was not shocked by was that no Democrat whined about anything Obama did in office. Buncha mindless lockstepping drones.
Cite?
If Kavanaugh had chosen not to hire a woman ever again, I wouldn’t have blamed him one bit. Since there are apparently a lot of people gullible enough to automatically believe anything a woman says to them, because they think we women never lie and that our farts smell like vanilla, it makes sense to never put yourself in a position where a woman can falsely accuse you.
Kudos to him for still being open to trusting women after the bullshit he went through.
Weeeeird how all those accusers just kind of decided to drop the whole thing once he was confirmed, huh?