Judge Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing - DAY 1

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (107 posts)
  1. RJ Schwartz profile image87
    RJ Schwartzposted 2 years ago

    Today is the first day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh - and it's already a wild and crazy ride.  At this early point in the hearing, reports are that 17 people have been removed for disrupting the proceedings, several Democrats forcibly interrupted the committee chairman with demands for a recess before the opening statements were made, and protests are being staged in numerous areas around the building.

    This hearing is nothing like anything America has seen in her history, but seems to be the new normal in politics.  The main argument today is connected to the timing of document delivery.  In the weeks leading up to today, more than 400,000 pages have been distributed to members; this figure represents more than twice the amount of any nominee in history.  There were documents protected by the White House, which is a standard thing, but Democrats demanded more.  Yesterday another batch was released amounting to over 40,000 additional pages in response to the demands.

    As of 11:20 EST, the Women's March group is claiming to be the organizers of the protests, which was intended to interrupt the proceeding every few minutes.

    The candidate is considered highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

    What are your thoughts?  Do you see any impact from the protests on the Senate?  Are those groups protesting, doing so for nothing?  Is obstruction becoming the new normal in politics, especially from the Democratic Party?  Moreover, is there any reason why Judge Kavanaugh should be rejected as a nominee?

    1. profile image0
      promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      - Arrests and protests at Senate hearings are common.

      - As I understand it, the Dems tried to stop the hearing because the Repubs delayed releasing the 400,000 pages. It does take time to read that much.  smile

      - The candidate is considered highly qualified by the conservative Federalist Society, a legal group. He isn't considered qualified by liberal legal groups.

      In answer to your questions:

      1. I don't see any impact from the protests because they rarely have impact.

      2. Most groups protest for nothing because the people in power just ignore them.

      3. Obstruction by either party is not a new thing. Mitch McConnell blocked more judicial appointments when Obama was in power than any presidency in U.S. history.

      4. Not from what I've read. But if he pushes more extremist court opinions like Citizens United or a weakening of Roe vs. Wade, it could easily lead to major social unrest.

      1. RJ Schwartz profile image87
        RJ Schwartzposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Which Supreme Court Justice hearings in the past had arrests and protests?  I can’t find any, thanks.

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Please feel free to do your own research on the history of protests and arrests at Senate hearings.

          1. RJ Schwartz profile image87
            RJ Schwartzposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I think you spoke too soon on this one - there have never been protests of this magnitude at a Senate confirmation hearing that I can find.

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              We are talking about two slightly different things. I was talking about protests at Senate hearings in general. You are talking about Senate hearings for the Supreme Court specifically.

              I don't see how you or I can realistically research every single Supreme Court hearing in U.S. history to find out if there have been any previous protests and arrests at SCOTUS hearings.

              That said, I will grant you your point that there have been none if you grant me my point that protests and arrests at Senate hearings aren't limited to just this one hearing.

              1. RJ Schwartz profile image87
                RJ Schwartzposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                that's fair - I wasn't trying to bait you - I was seriously looking for other instances to perhaps start a new Hub, but couldn't find any

            2. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I am glad to see citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest. If not now, when? This is the nominee of a President and administration in the crosshairs of several investigations, a nominee whose record shows he likely believes a sitting president should not be indicted. He should not be confirmed.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Just what are they protesting?  The possible appointment of a judge that will give verdicts by law rather than by political affiliation or bent?

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I can't speak for them. I personally believe this president should not be allowed to put forward a nominee  for reasons I already explained.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    The only "reason" you gave is that you don't like the president; all of his perceived faults are thus projected onto other people, people that may or may not be anything at all like him.  And this you called "rational"!

            3. profile image0
              promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              For the record, I don't think that extremist pro choice group should have protested in the hearing and disrupted it. They should have protested outside.

    2. Carolyn M Fields profile image92
      Carolyn M Fieldsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Here is my question, and perhaps someone on this forum can give me an answer:  What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Due process? So President Trump is "under investiation" for alleged crimes. Seems that many have already found him guilty, and therefore not fit to be in office. We are a LONG way off from that, folks. You can't just accuse someone and start an investigation and say "hey - stop what you're doing - you are under investigation." If that was true, then certainly Hillary would never have been able to run for president - because she was "under investigation" for the email server in her basement, and more. Or have we collectively decided to give up that basic freedom? Did I miss the memo?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        You missed the memo.  Trump is guilty of a large number of crimes, declared guilty because liberals don't like his policies and that's enough to declare guilt of anything and everything.

        1. Carolyn M Fields profile image92
          Carolyn M Fieldsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          That's what I suspected.

        2. RJ Schwartz profile image87
          RJ Schwartzposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          And don't forget that client-lawyer privilege has gone out the window too

      2. profile image0
        promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        If you are talking about Mannafort, Cohen, Gates and Papadopoulos, they were found guilty of their crimes.

        If you are talking about the other 30+ people who have been indicted and not faced trial yet, you are right, they are innocent until proven guilty.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          From Carolyn's post: " So President Trump is "under investiation" for alleged crimes.  Seems that many have already found him guilty, and therefore not fit to be in office.". 

          Seems she was talking specifically about President Trump, declared guilty of crimes he is not even indicted for and therefore not fit to hold office.  Not anyone else - what makes you think she was speaking of anyone outside of the President?

        2. Carolyn M Fields profile image92
          Carolyn M Fieldsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          To clarify - yes, I was just speaking of President Trump. And only Trump in this instance. I also don't believe in guilt by association - with some exceptions. I think you need to take each person and each case based on the merits. That's just how I roll.

          1. profile image0
            promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, Carolyn. I understood your post. I was trying to say that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The opinions of other people don't matter.

            I avoided using Trump's name because I was trying to be civil with you and avoid knee-jerk reactions from a couple of Trump extremists who bully people on here. I'll be more direct next time.  smile

    3. Dean Traylor profile image96
      Dean Traylorposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, confirmation hearings for supreme court justices were born out of some form of protest against a nominee. And, it surprisingly has a short history (102 years-old). In 1916, the first confirmation hearing was held for a controversial pick made by President Wilson. He was controversial for two reasons: he was Jewish and he was a successful lawyer who sued corporations. They had the senate meeting, but the nominee, Louis Brandeis, wasn't called in to testify. That wouldn't happen until 1939 when another Jewish lawyer (see a pattern?) was nominated by FDR. the nominee, a man with the unfortunate name of Felix Frankfurter was controversial for something else; he defended the accused anarchists, Sacco and Vanzetti. Still, he didn't answer many question and only told them that his record speaks for itself (it worked for him).
      The type of confirmation hearing that we've come to expect was in 1959, when Potter Stewart was nominated. Again, the controversy was that Southern Democrats and Conservative Republicans were leery of anyone who supported desegregation and affect National Security (that was never fully explained).
      Now, what seems to be happening, is the public is taking part in it. I can't say for certain if protesters from the public showed up at the meetings. In many cases, these things were not often televised until recently. And many protester likely stayed outside the court to voice their opposition.
      Still, it appears that confirmation hearing has evolved and there appears to be more attempts at vetting a nominee. The only problem is that the nominees get nominated. I believe only one nominee Justice Bork, was rejected after a confirmation hearing.

  2. crankalicious profile image95
    crankaliciousposted 2 years ago

    The McConnell Doctrine clearly states that no SCOTUS nominee should be voted on during an election year.

    1. RJ Schwartz profile image87
      RJ Schwartzposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I believe this was specifically a Presidential election year, but I respect your opinion on the subject if you feel differently.  Thanks for contributing!

      1. crankalicious profile image95
        crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        For what it's worth, I believe it's the right of the President to nominate whomever he wants and for that person to be confirmed if he/she is qualified. That said, Merrick Garland should have been confirmed and that's why people are protesting now.

        Now, with all those caveats, I still think he should be confirmed. He's clearly qualified. His appointment will wake up people who believe in individual rights over corporate rights and the rights of women and other marginalized individuals. If you feel stress from a potential blue wave now, wait until Kavanaugh swings a few decisions toward increased restrictions on abortion and more rights for corporations at the expense of individual rights.

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I agree. What goes around comes around. Mitch McConnell deserves as much credit for these silly battles as anyone.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            If one is okay with what McConnell did to deny Obama his Supreme Court nominee, then one should be just fine with the Democrats' tactics now.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              And if they weren't OK with it?  It's still OK because it's Democrats this time that are playing a political game to the detriment of the country?

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                They are playing political games for the betterment of the country, just like MsConnell did.

                See how that works?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep!  A pack of small children fighting in a sandbox, not one of them any better, smarter or caring any more about the people or country than any other one.  And that most definitely includes Democrats along with the independents, tea party and republicans.  Uncaring, sleazy crooks refusing to do the job they are paid to do while the country spirals further and further out of any semblance of control.

                  (Is this where we should take note that President Trump did his job in supplying a very qualified candidate - that it is the Democratic party refusing to do their job?)

      2. Carolyn M Fields profile image92
        Carolyn M Fieldsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        https://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/47066456 … t-a-person

        Yes . . . during a PRESIDENTIAL election year.

  3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years ago

    The Marxists hate him. He should be confirmed without delay. Can't wait until Ginsberg dies. Maybe it will be today. What a wonderful time to be alive!

    1. RJ Schwartz profile image87
      RJ Schwartzposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I'm really not seeing anything that would derail him at this point.  I did see an article on the net over the weekend that had a prominent Democrat lamenting about Harry Reid bringing the "nuclear option" to the Senate for judicial confirmations.  Apparently there are current lawmakers who want to return to the old rules (even though it will likely never happen in our partisan world)

    2. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "Can't wait until Ginsberg dies."

      Wow, you certainly lived up to your forum persona with that one.

      GA

  4. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago

    I am in favor of the Democrats  doing whatever it takes to prevent his nomination.

    1. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Is that because he is viewed as a conservative-leaning judge, or because he is a Trump nominee?

      GA

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Because he is a Teump nominee.

        1. RJ Schwartz profile image87
          RJ Schwartzposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          What if Trump nominated a Liberal Judge, would you still reject him or her?

        2. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          That sounds spiteful PrettyPanther. I was hoping that wasn't your reasoning.

          The nominee seems to be well qualified - by anyone's standards. It looks like you have decided to 'join the game, standards be damned.'

          GA

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No, it is not spiteful. It is rational to reject the nominee of a disgusting, lying POS who is not fit for office.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Can you describe your reasoning?  Is it like rejecting because of skin color, a parent in prison or a cousin using drugs?  Does "rational" mean actions of other people are used to determine what a nominee would do or what kind of person (s)he is?

              Because if the answer is "yes" you truly have gone to the dark side where anything associated with Donald Trump is bad regardless of how good it is.  Where WWIII is preferable to Trump as president and where anything that removes him from office is acceptable up to and including assassination.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Based on the number of corrupt individuals he has surrounded himself with, I would say that the odds are pretty good that a person associated with Trump is a corrupt individual. At the very least, he or she is a person who tolerates the lying POS, and that's enough for me.

                Kavanaugh might be a great guy, but there is evidence that he leans toward believing a sitting president cannot be indicted. Imagine that. I'm sure that had nothing to do with his being nominated for the Supreme Court by a sitting president in the crosshairs of several investigations. (sarcasm) If you believe Trump nominated him because he is a great legal scholar, well, then that would be typical of Trump supporters: ignoring the obvious.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  He may believe that, according to the law, a sitting president cannot be indicted.  Does the opinion of Democrats, uneducated in the nuances of the law or ignoring the law in favor of political power plays, make him wrong?

                  It seems so, doesn't it?

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    No, but there are plenty of legal scholars who believe a sitting president can be indicted. Is there something wrong with having a personal (not legal) opinion that no one should be above the law, including a president?

    2. profile image0
      promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "Kavanaugh may not become the most conservative member of the court, but his background suggests he would be the most partisan.

      "Working for Kenneth W. Starr in the 1990s, he was involved in the Vincent Foster and Monica Lewinsky probes, proposing an explicit line of questioning for President Bill Clinton with graphic queries about genitalia, masturbation, phone sex and oral sex.

      "And as a young lawyer under George W. Bush, Kavanaugh was involved in Bush v. Gore, the probe of Clinton’s pardons and legal decisions about torture."

      No wonder Trump chose him. He wants a partisan Supreme Court for his impeachment challenge.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … aaa0c7d711

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        According to Wikipedia, "At the federal level, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution grants to the House of Representatives "the sole power of impeachment", and Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 grants to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments"."

        What does a partisan Supreme Court have to do with preventing or approving an impeachment?

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Impeachments are guided by laws. If the House impeaches him, and the Senate goes to trial with the impeachment, then a procedural flaw in either one could lead to court involvement.

          And during a Senate impeachment trial, the Chief Justice serves as the judge. So SCOTUS potentially gets involved two ways.

    3. jackclee lm profile image85
      jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Spoken like a true partisan. I watched part of the hearing today. I must say, it went on better than I had expected. Senator Lindsay Gramm did an excellect job framing the debate. This man seems well qualified to be a justice. Those who don’t support him or vote for him based on merit just shows how partisan they are. I am all for the democratic process. Let the Senators do their job.

      1. profile image0
        promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Just like with Merrick Garland?

        But wait, that was different!  wink

        1. jackclee lm profile image85
          jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, it was. That was a presidential election year. Remember the Biden rule?

          1. profile image0
            promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "Republicans cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, arguing that if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer, President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement, or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate." - Wikipedia

            Biden simply suggested they wait. McConnell refused even to hold a hearing -- a first in U.S. history.

            Garland was nominated nearly a full year before Trump took office and not a couple of months like the Biden example. McConnell didn't even offer the moderate option.

            Big difference.

            1. jackclee lm profile image85
              jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The democrats were the one that changed the Senate rule of a 60 member majority. Now they cry foul...

              1. profile image0
                promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                What does that have to do with anything on this thread???

                1. jackclee lm profile image85
                  jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  It relates to how judges are reviewed and appointed...
                  Do you deny that Democratic Senators changed the rules on the 60 majority? They did and at the time, I remever distinctly McConnell warned them of changing times. In a few short years, they lost their majority and now we are more partisan. Who are we the people to blame? Not the GOP.

                  1. profile image0
                    promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Your comment has nothing to do with this topic, which is about Senate hearings for the Supreme Court.

                    Both parties change rules all of the time. But only one party squashed SCOTUS hearings for the first time in history.

            2. Readmikenow profile image98
              Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Guess what? There are rules in the US Senate and the Supreme Court nomination process. The majority party in the Senate chooses what does and does not come up for a vote.  The Republican majority in the Senate was under NO obligation to begin the nomination process with Merrick Garland. Rules don't change because Democrats don't like them.  If Democrats didn't like it, they should have gotten enough Democrats elected to control the US Senate.  That is how it has worked for hundreds of years and doesn't change to appease the Democrat party.  People voted a majority Republican Senate and this is how it works.

              1. profile image0
                promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Ah, the hand grenades are back.

                Refusing to have a hearing to fill a Supreme Court seat is not "how it works".

                From now on, let's have the party in charge of the Senate always refuse to have a hearing on filling any SCOTUS seat if the President is from the other party.

                During an 8-year presidency, if we had 3 openings, all 3 can sit there empty until the same 2 parties control both the Senate and White House.

                The hearing process worked during the entire history of the U.S. government because no party was asinine enough to refuse any SCOTUS hearings.

                Until now, thanks to Republican extremists.

  5. MizBejabbers profile image91
    MizBejabbersposted 2 years ago

    Kavanaugh is probably as good as it gets for a Republican nominee. I think this kind of thing is the new norm.

  6. Readmikenow profile image98
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    The Senate refusing to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nomination is NOTHING new.  Here is an article about how common it was in the 1800s. 

    "Battles over a president’s late-term judicial nominations are nearly as old as the Constitution itself. Thomas Jefferson’s successful fight against John Adams’ “midnight judges,” appointees rushed through in Adams’ last days in office in 1801, led to the famed Supreme Court case Marbury vs. Madison."

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ … 180962589/

    Again, the US Senate is under NO obligation to hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nomination.  If Democrats don't like it, they should have worked harder and elected more Democrats.  President Donald Trump provided a list of people he would consider for Supreme Court nominations during his campaign.  This is what the people of the United States voted for.  Sometimes when you lose, you have to accept everything that goes with it.  That is how adults handle things.  Maybe not liberals or Democrats, but adults.

    1. profile image0
      promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Horsepoop. That's a complete misreading of the article. Those were nominees who simply weren't confirmed.

      The article clearly states they took place before hearings became a standard for all future nominees.

      Garland is the only nominee denied a hearing since hearings were first implemented BY BOTH PARTIES.

      Adults with a conscience and who believe in the Constitution fight for democracy.

      Right-wing extremists want everything their way, without compromise, even when it comes to putting an illegal President into the White House with Russian money and propaganda.

      For them, the only Constitution is the 2nd Amendment and a puppet dictator.

      See, we all can throw hand grenades. What good does it do?

      1. Readmikenow profile image98
        Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Sounds like your DTS is in overdrive.  Work hard to elect more Democrats to the Senate and THEY can determine Supreme Court nomination hearings.  Until then....sour grapes.  Be honest, if the roles were reversed, the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing as the Republicans are doing now.  You're not as upset with what is being done as much as you are that your side isn't doing it. That is the bottom line.

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          When wrong, evade and get personal.

          My side? You still don't understand a thing about me or anyone else who doesn't agree with you.

        2. profile image0
          promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          By the way, it's a little hard for Democrats to win elections when Russians and billionaire Republicans are rigging them.  smile

          1. Readmikenow profile image98
            Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Oh well, it that's all you have....you have nothing.  it's not a personal attack...NO Democrat would complain if the tables were turned.  THAT is my point. Democrats are NO better than Republicans.  They only complain better and act like children better when they don't get what they want.

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You are changing your point.

              Again, Merrick Garland is the only SCOTUS nominee in history denied a hearing.

              No Republican was ever denied one by the Democrats.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            LOL  It's come to that now?  Without Russian lies and false information Trump would not be President?  As the Democrats 100% rig their primary to get the result the handlers want? 

            That's about the funniest thing I've heard yet!

            1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
              Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The left has been very good for jokes since the election.

              1. profile image0
                La Veeztaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I beg to differ. They were a joke long before the election.

                Did you hear about the reporter who asked Obama a hard question? Neither have we!

                Remember when some Republicans were saying that due to his current scandals, President Obama should be impeached. In response, Obama laughed and said, 'Two words fellas: President Biden.'

            2. profile image0
              promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              What's even funnier is someone who denies dozens of indictments and even Trump's own cabinet members saying the Russians are interferring in our elections.

              The joke is on you.

          3. crankalicious profile image95
            crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Now that we have the Bob Woodward book and the NYT article by a senior Trump Administration official, we pretty much know, without a doubt, that Trump is a lunatic, unhinged, and childlike. Anyone who supports him is an active participant in the destruction of civility and perhaps the Presidency itself.

            Those around him still clearly believe in conservative principles. We should all be thankful that, conservative or liberal, there are people like them in government willing to do what's best for the country and keep Trump under control.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              "Anyone who supports him is an active participant in the destruction of civility and perhaps the Presidency itself."

              Puts them in great company, for that is exactly what the TDS crowd has been doing for months and months now.  You know - spouting that he is mentally ill (without ever performing an exam or being qualified to render an opinion), exaggerating his every move into something it wasn't, taking words out of context when it can be made to show him wrong or foolish.  All that a and much more.  About all they haven't done is prove Trump/Russia collusion to fix the election! big_smile

              1. crankalicious profile image95
                crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                TDS is definitely a thing, just not what you think it is.

                Again, you have somebody from within the administration saying that almost the entire administration is controlling Trump to keep him from destroying everything because he doesn't have any guiding principles and changes his mind from one minute to the next. He's unstable.

                And then you have Woodward, one of America's most trusted journalists.

                Sure, you have a mess of chaotic responses to Trump because he's unstable.

                Did you read the NYT article? It's both unnerving, but somewhat confidence inspiring because it's good to know that even though the administration is conservative, they hold their responsibility to America higher than they hold their responsibility to Trump.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Why would I want to read something a liberal news source says is from an anonymous source making grandiose claims while hiding behind the curtain?  Reminds me of the sad little guy in the Wizard of Oz.

                  1. crankalicious profile image95
                    crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Because most available evidence suggests it’s true. TDS indeed!

              2. profile image0
                promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "TDS" is silly Fox News propaganda for the enjoyment of simple minds. It really needs to take a rest.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  But you understood the point being made with the term, right?  I'd have to say it is quite useful in that regard.

                  1. profile image0
                    promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Not at all. I am not a psychiatrist with the credentials to make up a mental illness.  wink

                  2. crankalicious profile image95
                    crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    What's hilarious about TDS is how ironic its use has become. Between the anonymous NYT article by a Trump administration person and Bob Woodward's book, you'd have to be in complete denial not to see the serious, unprecedented and dangerous problems.

  7. Readmikenow profile image98
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    This pretty much sums up the Democrat's behavior.
    https://hubstatic.com/14197272.jpg

    1. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I pretty much agree with that cartoon. Unfortunately, it is simply a response commensurate with how they are treated by the President.

      1. jackclee lm profile image85
        jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Really?
        I saw part of the hearing and I must say, whether you agree with his politics or not, this man is an excellent choice. I don’t get the people against him or the protesters. What are they afraid of?
        If anything, he seems too perfect. A father, a husband, a coach, a volunteer, a teacher and a judge. What else is he missing?
        For those who are afflected with TDS, anything that Trump proposes must be wrong or bad. That is how insane this process has become.
        You wonder what happened to civility in our country? What happened to tolerance? And what happened to free speech? Is this the best example we can present to the kids of our country?

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I love it when Trump supporters ask what happened to civility and tolerance  in this country. Get a clue. You elected a lying, bullying, name-calling, misogynistic POS to the highest office in the land.

          That's what happened to civility and tolerance in this country.

          1. jackclee lm profile image85
            jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I rest my case. Have a nice day!

            1. jackclee lm profile image85
              jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              BTW, I did not vote for Trump, but I will take him anyday over the lying, corrupt and scheming Hillary Clinton for POTUS.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Your "case" is apparently that the President can be as obnoxious, deceitful, and hateful as he wants and you still defend him, while holding your fellow citizens who call a spade a spade to a higher standard than their leader.

                That is the true derangement.

                1. jackclee lm profile image85
                  jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Just so you know, I may not like his style but in almost every instance, Trump was attacked first and he responded in kind. Unlike previous GOP candidates, like McCain and Romney who were too nice and they lost.

                  What I do like is his policies and his choices for the Supreme Court. At the end of the day, that is what counts.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Then don't complain about civility and tolerance if you are okay with a president who displays neither. You continue to encourage the low, low bar demonstrated by your dear leader. It is the height of hypocrisy to criticize your fellow Americans for despising that low, low bar and calling him out for what he is: a lying POS.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          "What are they afraid of? "

          A judge that will render verdicts based on the law rather than Democratic ideology.

          1. Readmikenow profile image98
            Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Excellent point!

            1. Ken Burgess profile image88
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I would chime in with some depth, but for two things.

              A) He will be confirmed and nothing is going to stop that, so what is the point in putting effort into debating the matter.

              B) The one person I defer to in all things political has thrown her support in his favor 100%.  She is far more sagacious than I in such matters. Her testimony:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQcbiB1AWPI

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "He will be confirmed and nothing is going to stop that, so what is the point in putting effort into debating the matter."

                Grandstanding and posturing for gullible voters in the upcoming elections; voters that think it's a sincere effort to stop the inevitable.  Happens all the time, which is probably why many politicians still have a job.

                Other than that, I haven't a clue.

  8. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    If even Trump were a" bully " and he still nominated Kavanaugh AND given that Condoleezza Rice stands up for him the way she did - a black ,female , ex-Bush leaguer ;  who served as a REAL  Secretary of State .   That is good enough for me .

    And , Kavanaugh will be the next supreme court Justice .
    No matter how it makes the left's heads explode !

  9. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    The  SCOTUS hearings were a democratic circus act beginning from day one , Harris , Booker , all the rest of the opposition one on top of the other vying for election attention ,   I find it interesting to see what the Democrats  3 ring circus act will do to mid term impressions of these grandstanders .

    Come on red tide .

  10. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    I loved it when Condi Rice educated everyone there about Kavanaugh , That woman shows more class than the entire sitting committee . Notice , no racism chants  or feminists whining about her testimony ,

    1. profile image0
      La Veeztaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Did you hear about this?

      https://youtu.be/J_d_a49hhLo

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Has anyone EVER witnessed such a spectacle of the protesters who were escorted out constantly ?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)