• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats refuse phone call with Kavanaugh, demand FBI probe

Moot said:
The part that says the Senate shall give advice and consent to the presidents nomination.
Click to expand...

They did give advice and they didn't consent so they didn't violate the constitution thanks i knew you were wrong.
 
Moot said:
The part that says the Senate shall give advice and consent to the presidents nomination.
Click to expand...

They did, the Senate advised Obama there'd be no consent. Before, during or after hearings is irrelevant.
 
dcsports said:
Merrick Garland was not a normal process. See, that was easy! No violation of the process at all.

Are you suggesting that Democrats are going to sit on the nomination for 2 1/2 years?
Click to expand...

Except it wasn't a normal process and it violated the constitution. Sorry if that's too difficult for you to understand.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
cry more.

They will get their hearing on 9/24.
if she shows up.

if she doesn't show up the hearing will be canceled and the vote will continue.
Click to expand...

This social activist volunteered to be the torpedo to try to sink a Supreme Court Justice. Don't do that if you
aren't prepared to testify under oath in front of a full media circus. Only proving TDS makes one blind and foolish.
The big picture is the dems playing her like a fiddle. They convinced her that it was for the greater good and
then disposed of her like a used tissue. It was worth it for them. Her, not so much.

Seems like this whole scam is falling apart fairly quickly. If Ford doesn't respond, or show up for the hearing
on Monday, nothing, I mean NOTHING can stop the judges confirmation. And there isn't anything the Dems can say or do about it
 
hanger4 said:
They did, the Senate advised Obama there'd be no consent. Before, during or after hearings is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't.
 
slick said:
This social activist volunteered to be the torpedo to try to sink a Supreme Court Justice. Don't do that if you
aren't prepared to testify under oath in front of a full media circus. Only proving TDS makes one blind and foolish.
The big picture is the dems playing her like a fiddle. They convinced her that it was for the greater good and
then disposed of her like a used tissue. It was worth it for them. Her, not so much.

Seems like this whole scam is falling apart fairly quickly. If Ford doesn't respond, or show up for the hearing
on Monday, nothing, I mean NOTHING can stop the judges confirmation. And there isn't anything the Dems can say or do about it
Click to expand...

She just came out and said she wouldn't testify without a full FBi investigation.

and now we have the coup d etat.

Feinstein blames GOP after Kavanaugh accuser stays mum, admits 'I can't say everything's truthful' | Fox News
Feinstein, who has vouched for Ford's credibility, also admitted she could not verify that Ford's allegations were entirely true.
 
Moot said:
No, they didn't.
Click to expand...

as usual you are not correct.

It was McConnell who seized the moment after the death of Scalia last February to announce there would be no confirmation hearings until after the election.

So McConnell announcned in February that no confirmation hearings.
Garland was not nominated until March.
 
Moot said:
No, they didn't.
Click to expand...

Aaaaaah, but they did;

*"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."*
 
Moot said:
Except it wasn't a normal process and it violated the constitution. Sorry if that's too difficult for you to understand.
Click to expand...

It violated the Constitution, what poppy ****.

Post up the part/s of the Constitution it violated moot ??
 
TurtleDude said:
I oppose the 60 vote rule-there is nothing in the constitution that requires that or even supports it.
Click to expand...

True. It had been a Senate rule. The point, however, is that SCOTUS judges should have reasonably broad acceptance. It is a lifetime appointment for people whose job it is to call balls and strikes. We should not have legislation from the bench, right or left. We should not be ramrodding people through with just 50+ votes.
 
upsideguy said:
True. It had been a Senate rule. The point, however, is that SCOTUS judges should have reasonably broad acceptance. It is a lifetime appointment for people whose job it is to call balls and strikes. We should not have legislation from the bench, right or left. We should not be ramrodding people through with just 50+ votes.
Click to expand...

the way things are now-the dems won't vote for anyone who they suspect does not worship at the altar of abortion. and the GOP won't vote for anyone who has a history of opposing gun rights or is a supporter of most abortion. So the only time someone would be seated is if one party gets the white house and 60 seats. that's been a while
 
hanger4 said:
Aaaaaah, but they did;

*"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."*
Click to expand...

The constitution says "advise and consent"...not delay and ignore.
 
Moot said:
The constitution says "advise and consent"...not delay and ignore.
Click to expand...

I guess Obama should have gotten more of that advise before he stamped his feet demanding their consent.
 
Aberration said:
I guess Obama should have gotten more of that advise before he stamped his feet demanding their consent.
Click to expand...

They didn't give him any advice, so you guessed wrong. "Stamping his feet" sounds more like something Trump would do.
 
Moot said:
The constitution says "advise and consent"...not delay and ignore.
Click to expand...

Like I said, they did, the Senate advised there would be no consent. Before, during or after hearings is irrelevant.
 
Chomsky said:
Hard to dispute the OP, concerning where we'are at now. But this event was done in a troubling fashion. Leaking the accusatory July letter this late in the game, is extremely problematic in my opinion.

Even more troubling, is the excuse given for the timing:

The letter was leaked against the wishes of the accuser!
Click to expand...

Well, the problem is that it is swamp politics at its worst. The woman knew she was going to come forward, and new the story would be used, otherwise why get a polygraph in August?
 
Moot said:
Except it wasn't a normal process and it violated the constitution. Sorry if that's too difficult for you to understand.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a normal nomination or process. And no, it didn't violate the constitution.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, the problem is that it is swamp politics at its worst. The woman knew she was going to come forward, and new the story would be used, otherwise why get a polygraph in August?
Click to expand...

It's called "conspiracy." Democrats have held this false allegation card for months only to be used as a last ditch effort to derail the Kavanaugh conformation.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm still trying to figure out HOW in the world this is anywhere within the jurisdiction of the FBI?

It's a 30+ year old case, outside of the statue of limitations for legal action, that occurred in Maryland and doesn't involve any federal laws?

Is there some subset of federal law I am unaware that the FBI has jurisdiction in investigating any potential crime at any given time for an individual up for public nomination?
Click to expand...

That's a question that should be asked of Feinstein. She supposedly obtained a letter with serious charges concerning a state matter and forwarded it to the feds after sitting on it through the hearings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom