POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

There absolutely is. Democrats pick liberals and Republicans don't.

 

Ah, yes, because Republicans are known and willing to give free rides to liberals and Democratic choices for the courts.

 

I would welcome the opportunity to learn more about those Democratic nominees treated similar to Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. They even have a word for it; "borked".

 

How would they be treated the same, if they didn't act the same, or are you saying the Republicans would let a sexual assault allegation go, and just not bring it up, when the nominee was a Democrat?

 

No; I am asking if there has been similar contentious processes of Democratic nominees as there are Republican nominees (i.e, Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh)?

Since the responses have been snarkyness I take it the answer is No.

 

Yet, practically none for Souter, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch. Perhaps there's a reason in there, too.

Republicans have been playing zero sum, scorched earth with the Democrats since 1994. The idea they wouldn't pull out all the stops for a Supreme Court nominee of the Democrats is silly. They tried to make hay out of "wise Latina" for Sotomayor and that's about the best grasp they've gotten on any nominee.

 

I had to look bork up. I haven't ever heard the word used like that. I always heard it as in something being broke

 

You seem to believe that the process would be contentious regardless of who was nominated, but you are not considering that it was the nominees themselves that caused the contention.

So no, when the nominees are better nominees, there is less contention. When the nominees are dirty, the process is dirty. An exception here would be when the process was dirty, the process will be dirty. So not nominating in 2016, and pushing through a nomination now, will result in a very contentious nomination.

 

If I understand you correctly. Republicans nominees (Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh) are dirty and Democratic nominees are not.

 

you keep leaving out several nominees because they defeat your claim.

 

I have made no claim. I simply asked a question....

The answer appears to be No.

 

More like Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh had questions from their past, and all the rest did not.

I suppose it is hard to accept that, as it would require acknowledging that those questions exist.

 

You cannot have similar treatment without similar background.

So allow me to ask a question: has any Democratic nominee had a similar background?

I just asked a question. It appears no.

 

let me rephrase.

you said if you understand correctly, it is being claimed that one side was dirty but only included 3 individuals, and then the other was categorically not.

There is a reason why you have to explicitly give 3 individuals for one category, and it is because you can see plainly that there is not a categorical treatment of one side being "dirty." but you wish to claim that there is such a treatment occurring. but you obviously know there is not, so why are you pretending?

If you just want to piss off libs to get tears, I can just mail them to you. they are a renewable resource. though I suppose the craftsmanship is part of the appeal.

 

Giggity.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...&login=email&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

 

Fake News.
He just outsmarted the IRS.
Every billionaire "loses money".
You are just jealous.
Whatabout <insert politician here>?

 

Bastard just got another nomination for another Nobel Peace Prize

 

Doesn't read like he's doing anything illegal (other than having 0 idea what goes into the expenses), but it's all a debt-financed house of cards.

 

I have no doubt. I don't think anyone that pays attention had any doubt.

 

From the same joker that nominated him last time, right?