Why is Kavanaugh getting a hearing? Why?

[onecaliberal]

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

1. You have to ask

Power

[onecaliberal]

4. Republicans are hiding his papers. I'm sick of us rolling over. We yawn while the right constantly

Moved the goal post or changes rules.

[manor321]

5. Rolling over?

Republican voters showed up at the polls to take the White House and the Senate. This is what they get to do. This is how it works.

People need to show up and actually vote for us to get what we want.

Democrats cannot stop the hearings and can't stop the vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. 55,000 votes in PA, WI, and MI

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

22. They did? You mean the ones on the computer in Russia?

Cheating isnt winning...they cheated so hard, and have been since 2000. Don't lecture DUers about what we did wrong on top of it.

[Anon-C]

62. +1000

[LenaBaby61]

79. They did? You mean the ones on the computer in Russia?

THIS until infinity. With thuglicans cross-checking, voter-purging, gerrymandering and with what appears to have happened in Wis., Pa., & Mi., the ruskies got the 80,000 or so votes they needed for their fat, racist buddy to "win" the 2016 US presidency.

[EffieBlack]

133. This didn't start with the 2016 presidential race

Democrats didn't come out to vote in 2010 and 2014 and allowed the Senate to turn Republican.

I remember it well. Something about "teaching Obama a lesson.""

[fallout87]

83. DO we have proof of this?

Would love to send a link over to a few family members who dont believe it's true.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

84. google it?

[fallout87]

86. I just did and nothing from a Mainstream source comes up

since you appear to know... why not just provide a link?

[john657]

87. There is no proof that the Russians changed, or added votes,

it's all speculation at this point.

[fallout87]

93. I didn't think we did...

But we have posters here claiming so, without any evidence. We know the other side loves to peddle fake news, but we are better than that and it's what separates us.

[john657]

96. A few in particular, but when you ask them for proof or links to

the proof, they usually don't answer or tell you to google yourself.

[AncientGeezer]

111. How would Ruskies on computers change vote totals?

[john657]

114. They wouldn't and there's no proof

that it happened.

Some people love to push that meme despite there being zero proof, so far, it happened.

[AncientGeezer]

120. Preachin' to the choir

[Grasswire2]

108. 18 percent of the electorate voted for Trump

...AND Russians ran interference for him.

They have no mandate. They cannot legitimately claim to be doing the will of the people.

The tyranny of this minority must be neutralized or all is lost. ALL is LOST.

[Autumn]

135. Democratic voters showed up at the polls. Hillary got 3 million

more votes than the scum sitting in the White House. I call that showing up.

[EffieBlack]

13. It's not the Senate Dems who are rolling over - it was Dem voters who rolled over in 2010 and 2014

And let the Senate turn Republican.

I don't know why folks are now surprised or pissed - elections do indeed have consequences.

[FSogol]

52. +1, exactly. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

54. Thanks

This is the ugly truth that needs to be said.

[Gothmog]

90. The Democrats do not have the votes to block a hearing

[pnwmom]

18. They control the Senate, in part because we failed to support some Dems we disparagingly

called DINO's-- which were the only kind we could get elected in red states. With their losses, we lost our Senate majority.

We used to be smarter about this, but the purists killed our majority.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

23. Joe Manchin again?

.............................................
..................................

[pnwmom]

32. It's why we need Joe Manchin. If we lost him we'd be one vote even farther from the majority.

Manchin, according to Progressive Punch, takes the progressive position about 56% of the time -- which sounds terrible till you realize that Susan Collins, the most "moderate" member of the GOP Senate, only votes with progressives 26% of the time. And the 2nd most "moderate" GOP, Dean Heller, only votes with progressives 13% of the time.

So unless we want to have a person like Manchin replaced with someone like Susan Collins or Dean Heller, we should be supporting him as much as any Democrat from a blue state.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

[Bluepinky]

41. Manchin and two other Democrats voted to confirm Gorsuch.

And they may be gearing up to vote for Kavanaugh. Don’t know what’s so great about them. Votes for Supreme Court appointments are among the most important, and if they can’t vote with their party, it would be better to get someone who will.

[pnwmom]

43. Gorsuch had enough votes without their votes. So when the Senate majority leader allowed

the 3 Democrats to vote for him, he strengthened their hand in their own states, while not changing the outcome.

As soon as the GOP had 51 votes, they won. Our 3 votes gave them 54, changing NOTHING.

(This is a tactic that has been around as long as there's been a Congress. If we let the DINO's vote with the R's on some votes where we would have lost anyway, we lose nothing. And the DINO, meanwhile, gets some votes that show he's not a knee-jerk liberal.)

[Bluepinky]

85. That makes sense, I actually heard that at the time.

[Eliot Rosewater]

102. Some folks refuse to learn this

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

50. Yes but, thankfully, they're Democrats.

[bettyellen]

72. Their votes meant nothing except to dispel the idea that Dems are 100% partisan.

Manchin reps a pretty conservative area, I don’t agree with the voters there but I also think you can’t get someone if love elected there.

Literally their votes changed nothing at all.

[pnwmom]

78. You get it, bettyellen. A progressive's progressive wouldn't be electable there.

And that particular vote changed nothing.

The most important thing is that we need even more Joe Manchins from the red states to get a majority back.

[john657]

80. Vote with their party?

I thought that they were supposed to represent the people of their state, and Joe Manchin is in a pretty red state.

[Bradshaw3]

56. You are making too much sense

Seems pretty obvious from a strategic viewpoint but it needs to be said.

[Kilgore]

77. This should be fun to watch

[Kaleva]

137. If you are sick of it, why are you rolling over?

[dsc]

2. because the GOP has 51 votes

that is why.

[Pope George Ringo II]

53. Math continues to be undefeated.

My old nemesis, gravity, has a similar winning streak.

[EffieBlack]

61. Perfect!

[Decoy of Fenris]

104. It's rare when someone online gets me to actually chuckle out loud. Well done. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. 50 beats 49.

[onecaliberal]

6. A president under criminal investigation should not ever be able to nominate anyone for a lifetime.

Position on the highest court in the land who will ultimately sit in judgement of his legitimacy. Th clowns will rule that dump is above the law and then it won’t matter how much power Dems get because the court will overturn EVERYTHING we’ve made progress on for the last 100 years.

[at140]

10. That is not the precedence

President Clinton nominated justice Breyer during Starr investigation and the senate confirmed him.

[onecaliberal]

11. He was under investigation for lying about a blow job, not treason. Nothing related to his

Election or legitimacy. We have never been here before.

[at140]

20. I guess lying about anything in court

is considered perjury, which is a serious crime. Perjury makes no distinction if it was lying about Russia collusion or a blow job. If I recall correctly, it was lying in court about the Paula Jones lawsuit. I am going by only memory.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

29. So they were the same in your mind...and Breyer turned out to be evidence of same?

Clinton was the 2nd best president in my lifetime I couldn't disagree MORE with your whole paradigm...starting at the foundation. ALL the investigations were political kneecapping. don has/is destroying our country. BIG difference. History has shown your ideas are misguided about President Clinton. (Bill, not Hillary)
New here?

[at140]

66. Clinton is the reason I could retire early

The stock market was great and the economy was great during Bill Clinton.

Anyways, there is a majority of repugs in senate, and they might even snatch a few dems to vote for Kavanaugh. We gotta choose fights we can win. Best option right now is to win the November elections coming up.

[john657]

82. You speak the truth here. N/T

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

24. You're absolutely right onecalliberal.

[bronxiteforever]

31. You are correct.

[pnwmom]

33. True. But there's nothing in the constitution that says this. And that's what we're stuck with

unless it's changed -- and there's a long involved process for that, too.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. Yes, not even a close comparison.

[Freethinker65]

7. Because they, the GOP, can. They might not get the opportunity to ever again.

Distruction of individual rights for money and power given to them by the wealthy ruling class is what the GOP live for.

[bottomofthehill]

9. Because elections have consequences

And when people stay home over going To the polls over a purity test, this is what we get. Mrs Clinton would not have made these decisions. For all the Bernie Bro, Susan Sarandon style bullshit, we now have this insanity.

[EffieBlack]

17. Thank you.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

37. What ARE the consequences for illegitimate ones? And when does the court injunct?) all action until

it's figured out how and why and what the implications are? It's THE biggest irreparable harm to this country since the civil war. Why does an entire nation have to pay for the actions of a few? How is it Joe Americans fault? The guy who goes to work, votes etc? these crisp retorts about the reasons why are are null and void if the 51 figure or whatever is as a result of thrown elections right down the ballot. So...all of you voter lecturers can all just take a day off in my mind. Blaming the victim in any other scenario is appalling...until it comes to addressing the voting and the corruption in the Land of the Free. Happy Holidays everyone. Turning my phone off. Love Peace and elbow grease.

[onecaliberal]

49. Thank you for articulating my thoughts so much better than I did.

[Bradshaw3]

58. So what exactly would you propose to fight this?

Not just complaining about what's going on, or not wanting to hear about why we are here, but what practical solutions do you propose - right now - that would change this? And resorting to the "courts should do this" doesn't qualify as a practical solution since conservatives also control the courts.

[onecaliberal]

59. The Dems should be screaming from the roof. On every show, do not attend the hearing

I’m sorry but anything you’ve got to say about the law or the constitution doesn’t fit here. The republicans do not give a fuck about the constitution. We need massive protests. People don’t seem to realize what the guy getting on thhim court means for this country.

[Bradshaw3]

60. So mass protests and screaming on tv are the answer?

I think millions of people, including on here and in Congress, do realize what they are getting. They are fighting it and that may include protests and they already are all over tv making the case.

And it doesn't matter what I say about the constitution, it matters what the people in charge say. And that fits here much more than screaming and mass protests that will be ignored by the repubs in charge even more than they ignore the constitution.

[onecaliberal]

63. It's gotten us here. Completely fucked

You want to keep listening to republicans be my guest. We will keep going down the road of destruction. I guess we we will see how that works for us. Republicans do not follow the law or constitution so pretending they do is a pointless argument.

[Bradshaw3]

81. Nowhere in my posts did I say anything like that

Quote where I wrote that we should "listen to repubs." You can't. I asked you for concrete ways to solve the problem and your answer was to make up something. That doesn't prove your case - it shows you don't really have one, which was obvious throughout the thread.

[onecaliberal]

91. Your point is do nothing. I'm not advocating for that.

Good day.

[Bradshaw3]

95. No that wasn't my point at all so you did it again

Either there is a problem with reading comprehension on your part or you deliberately make up things about other DU posters. Instead of using falsehoods to attack DU posters, one route is to come up with solid arguments before you post. With all that's going on it's understandable people want to rant but using these kinds of tactics of attacking fellow Democrats doesn't make your point. As I said, your "point" about screaming on tv and mass protests aren't going to stop the Supreme Court nominee. There are ways to fight it but you haven't come up with any.

I asked you to come up with practical ways to fight it and you can't. You just attack fellow DUers using falsehoods.

[bearsfootball516]

105. Onecaliberal doesn't like your answer because it's based in fact and not in emotion like theirs is.

[Bradshaw3]

130. Thank you

I understand why people are emotional; with repubs in control of two/thirds of the government and a lying idiotic POS in charge of the other and doing horrendous things makes people angry. But you don't change things by denying reality and lashing out at those who are on your side.

[EffieBlack]

64. Screaming on tv is a strategy?

No, it's not. It's just screaming on tv.

And not attending the hearing just means he won't have to answer any difficult questions.

People should have been thinking of this possibility years ago, especially in 2010 and 2014, when they were busy trying to "teach Obama a lesson" because he didn't give them a pony. Some of us tried to warn people about this but were met with cries of "DINO!!!" "The enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't!" "Pragmatism sucks!" blah blah blah

[Grasswire2]

109. exactly. The election was aberrant. Perhaps extra-constitutional. It needs to be adjudicated...

....prior to any major appointments.

One party went rogue and acted against the intention of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

That party should not be profiting from the fruits of the assault.

[john657]

115. Has anyone in authority, say the Judicial Branch,

said it was illegitimate?

Did I miss that happening?

[onenote]

116. I guess you've forgotten about the birther lawsuits

that alleged Obama was an illegitimate president and that were, for all intents and purposes, universally dismissed by the courts on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing and the court lacked jurisdiction.

[AncientGeezer]

113. Is there a Finding of an "illegitimate " election?

I have yet to see Hillary call it illegitimate. Have you?

[CentralMass]

106. Sanders supporters by the numbers were more loyal to the party then were Hillary supporters in 2008

By a 2:1 margin.

Depending on which stats you use in the studies mentioned either 94% or 88% of Sanders primary voters voted for the nominee, Hillary. Versus only 76% of Hillary voters who voted for Senator Obama in 2008. Relative to recent elections the number of Sanders voters who voted for the nominee when their candidate lost was high.

The study concludes that these Sanders - tRump voters were not Democrats to begin with and were never going to vote for Hillary

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/

We got our asses kicked by trump for a myriad of reasons in states that Democrat should not have lost.

Voter turnout was the lowest in 20 years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/10/why-did-trump-win-in-part-because-voter-turnout-plunged/

[Bluepinky]

12. Can't we file a lawsuit halting the hearings until the requested documents have been obtained

and reviewed? I don’t hear the Democratic Senators making a lot of noise about this. Can’t they refuse to attend the hearing until said documents are obtained? Can they filibuster?

[pnwmom]

15. We can't filibuster -- the rules were changed to prevent that. And there is no basis for a lawsuit.

[Bluepinky]

26. Senators are required to advise re: any Supreme Court nominee.

If Senators aren’t allowed to review requested documents, they are unable to advise. Withholding requested documents should be the basis of a lawsuit.

Another option: if no Democrats attended the hearing, would they legally be able to hold it?

[TexasTowelie]

70. As long as there is a quorum

there is nothing that Democrats can do to stop the hearing. As long as there are 49 Republican senators and the 1
Democrat who would make the motion to check that a quorum of senators are available then the hearing continues. They could delay the hearing for a bit, but that tactic would only work once since the Republicans would quickly assemble all of their senators to proceed with the hearing.

[pnwmom]

88. As long as a majority of Senators feel that they have adequately advised, that's all that matters,

legall speaking.

If no Democrats attended but a quorum was present, they could still legally hold it.

[onecaliberal]

16. This. I just wonder what they're doing. I don't see them doing anything to try and stop it.

[mythology]

39. Be specific about what you think they could be doing that they aren't

You've already backtracked when it was pointed out that if the under investigation standard would have blocked Breyer. You don't seem to have actually thought through what you actually want.

Here's a hint, we're outnumbered in the Senate and the filibuster was removed for judges, including the Supreme Court. So draw the map for how to block the nomination.

[GulfCoast66]

68. Can you name one single thing they can do to stop it?

Bitching about illegitimate president does not count cause it will stop nothing.

[lunasun]

107. "I just wonder what they're doing "

http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/404742-durbin-trump-is-saying-american-people-have-no-right-to-know
http://time.com/5382872/democrats-cant-stop-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/

https://www.businessinsider.com/r-democrats-slam-white-house-for-withholding-documents-on-supreme-court-nominee-2018-9

[onenote]

118. we can file a lawsuit and it will be dismissed as quickly as the birther suits were dismissed

for the same reasons: lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction

[pnwmom]

14. Because we lost the majority when we failed to support some DINO's in a crucial election.

And the purists never figured out that we can't have a Senate majority without some DINO's, because the Senate is weighted heavily toward low population, rural states.

[EffieBlack]

19. But at least they taught Obama a lesson, didn't they?

[NurseJackie]

28. Exactly right. Purists...

And the purists never figured out that we can't have a Senate majority without some DINO's, because the Senate is weighted heavily toward low population, rural states.

Exactly right. Purists! Vain and arrogant and vindictive... wanting to "teach a lesson" to imperfect Democrats... who still believe that Vermont-style politicians can win in West Virginia.

This is what happens when the Sarandons of the world get their way by voting "third party" or not voting at all. It will be a hard lesson learned that will last for GENERATIONS. I'll certainly be dead before the horrors we're living (and the horrors that await us) can be reversed.

[pnwmom]

34. Vermont-style politicians can't even win in Maine -- so we're stuck with "moderate" Susan Collins.

[George II]

55. Susan Collins is "MINO" - moderate in name only, she votes with republicans 90% of the time.

[pnwmom]

75. Yes -- why I put "moderate" in quotes. She isn't really. n/t

[Bluepinky]

35. "Vermont-style politicians." Must it always revert to Bernie Sanders?

An illegitimate, stolen Presidency is about foreign interference in our elections.

Skip the lectures.

[NurseJackie]

40. It's about reality and strategy and regaining the majority...

"Vermont-style politicians." Must it always revert to Bernie Sanders?

It's about reality and strategy and regaining the majority. (Vermont has many politicians and a well-known political philosophy and style. I didn't say a single word about "Bernie Sanders".)

An illegitimate, stolen Presidency is about foreign interference in our elections.

I know! Yet, other politicians, wacky celebrities, and their followers appear more intent on "sending messages" of purity, for vanity purposes than ACTUALLY working to defeat Republicans.

Skip the lectures.

On the contrary. Based from what I can see, these "lectures" and reminders are needed now more than ever.

[Bluepinky]

42. Yes, but don't lecture us on DU.

We don’t need lecturing, at least I don’t. I don’t want to hear about party purity during the last election, I agree with you on that. I want to know what we can do to stop this illegitimate Republican steamroller that’s destroying everything in its path.

[NurseJackie]

47. Many do...

We don’t need lecturing, at least I don’t.

Many do need "lecturing" and reminding. And if it doesn't apply to you, then just ignore it. You can rest assured that I wasn't talking to you or referring to you. There's really no need for anyone to find reasons to be offended at things that are clearly not directed at them in the first place.

I don’t want to hear about party purity during the last election, I agree with you on that.

That's good to know. Sadly, not everyone agrees with us... and not everyone understands the reality of how politics work in "Red States" or the importance of having a majority.

[George II]

98. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[saidsimplesimon]

57. Classy response, Bluepinky

I also need to spend more time acting on ways to create roadblocks for all Republicans, the Party of Betrayal

[brer cat]

92. Remembering history

can help keep us from repeating it. We don't need a splintered party going after these republicans. If we elect, as we always do, some DINOs, some less than pure from the standpoint of some members, so be it if it gets us a majority. Stopping the wholesale destruction of our country should be priority #1 for everyone.

Keep it up, NJ!

[Kaleva]

94. "Primary the Fuckers!" was the battle cry of many here not just a few years ago.

The archived threads make for interesting reading.

[NurseJackie]

97. Indeed it was. Many could benefit from a lecture and...

... a dose of reality.

[Kaleva]

100. Seeing the effects first hand of not having control of either chamber when...

someone like Trump is president may have caused several to change their tune.

People evolve over time. A few of Hillary's strongest supporters here today used to attack her for being "hysterical" and make fun of her "cackle" back in 2008.

[lastlib]

21. Because too many Dems sat on their cabooses in critical elections and didn't VOTE!!

Or whined about ideological purity when they should've been voting to stop GOPhers from getting elected.

[beachbum bob]

25. Because Jill stein voters made it so

[Vinca]

27. Because Mitch McConnell is running the show and they've got the numbers.

Harry Reid of all people changed Senate rules so they can push whoever they want through with a simple majority. We're screwed and I can't think of much Democrats can do about it. Even if we win the House and Senate in November, Gorsuch and this character will be on the Supreme Court for life. I like Robert Reich's idea that if the election is proved to have been stolen, Trump's presidency and everything he's done should be annulled. Unfortunately, there's nothing in law to provide for it.

[onecaliberal]

30. Indeed. The founders did envision a trump, but not a Republican Congress who would allow it.

[Bluepinky]

36. If no Democrats show up for hearings or a vote, could they hold them?

[George II]

44. Unfortunately they can be held - a quorum is simply a majority of Senators.

[EffieBlack]

65. This wasn't Harry Reid's doing

Yes, the Dems changed the rules to get lower court judges through - after Democratic voters demand they DO something and they got tired of the Republican majority blocking every single one of Obama's circuit and district court judges. But they didn't take away the Supreme Court filibuster. McConnell and the Republicans did that all on their own.

And, although the Republicans and the media love to blame the Dems for "opening the door," to this, don't be fooled. Even if the Democrats had never changed the rule on lower court judges, the Republicans would have gotten rid of the filibuster when they got back in power, regardless what the Democrats had done previously.

[Mike Nelson]

38. Because the Republicans get...

… to decide.

[SHRED]

45. Voter apathy

And "purity testing".

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. Amy said yesterday it was because if they walked out they wouldn't be able to ask questions.

It's like some "grown-up" approach...which has no appeal to me, a rabid activist. Like asking questions is gonna change a single vote.

[EffieBlack]

67. They need to ask him tough questions and get him on the record

It's not a "grown up approach." It's the right one.

Among other things, they can pin him down, hold his feet to the fire, get him to say things on the record. It's important for the public to hear him answer difficult questions and not just see him knocking softballs out of the park. And, just as important, he could very likely perjure himself, which could be addressed when the Democrats eventually take back the House and Senate. Supreme Court justices can be impeached and removed from the bench ...

We don't know if asking questions is going to change a vote but we do know that NOT asking any questions won't change a thing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

129. Very good

Argument...but I still think they are acquiescing. Sure they will get him to slip up...but it doesn't matter...he will still get in for life. We need drastic out-of-the-box emergency type tactics..or generations will be stuck with him.

[john657]

131. All well and good,

but what out of the box emergency tactics?

At this point in time, Senate Democrats have no procedural moves they can make to block Kavanaugh's confirmation.

[EffieBlack]

132. Not showing up at a hearing is not a "drastic out-of-the-box emergency type tactic."

What exactly do you propose the Dems do?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

134. I agree with this

Link to tweet

?s=20

[EffieBlack]

136. Walking out is NOT a "drastic out-of-the-box tactic" and it accomplishes nothing other than giving

Kavanaugh a free ride.

Staying in the hearing, asking tough questions, calling out Grassley and the other Republicans isn't "playing along." It's not only their job, it's what they need to do now to bring attention to what's going on. And they've done a great job so far this morning.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

138. Whatever. You think you are right I think I am right.

That's all there is to it. Peace

[Mr. Ected]

48. Because the media only ruffles the feathers of Democrats in power

They don't touch these kind of things with a ten foot pole when the GOP is running the show.

[GulfCoast66]

69. Why is the Democratic Party continually attached on DU for republican actions?

Why?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

73. Good question.

[Orsino]

71. Because we failed to regulate the private money that has bought him the necessary votes.

We lost Congress in a purely arithmetical sense, but the principle that those elected will represent voters instead of dollars is long gone.

[onecaliberal]

74. Which means th constitution is outdated, and contains no protection for working Americans

From monied interests who have completely destroyed this country.

[AncientGeezer]

112. Change it.

I grew up in the ERA(Equal Rights Amendment) era...how did that work out?

[onecaliberal]

119. We've made progress and here we are watching ALL of it go down the drain.

[john657]

121. And that's why it's imperative that we GOTV in Nov.

and 2020.

[AncientGeezer]

122. The Dumpster doesn't have that power...to make "ALL of it go down the drain".

[onecaliberal]

128. If Kavanaugh gets on the court, it won't be long.

[guillaumeb]

76. The GOP is in charge. And they set the agenda. eom

[Gothmog]

89. Because voters stayed home during 2014 midterms

[JHan]

99. this. +

[Gothmog]

139. From the Hoarse Whisperer

Link to tweet

[dlk]

101. Republicans are Pretending they Believe in Democracy

[AncientGeezer]

123. They don't....

and frankly we aren't a democracy... at least at the Federal Level.

[still_one]

103. Gee, perhaps it has something to do with 2016, and why enough self-identified progressives they

wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee in in 2016 by either voting third party or not voting

[Grasswire2]

110. It seems only two things could stop this.

1. A major leak of something so shocking as to stun the nation.

2. The people BORK him. Masses of people. Massive demonstrations. Soon. We need to provide cover for those wobbly Dems.

[john657]

117. Let me respond.

1. Highly unlikely, at this stage, anything massively scandalous will come out, and,

2. Massive demonstrations isn't going to stop the pubs from confirming Kavanaugh.

[Grasswire2]

124. but mass demonstrations will lay the marker for the election that Dems SUPPORTED..

..a woman's right to choose and Dems SUPPORTED the rule of law and DEMS stand with all those issues that will affect the lives of millennials.

Capitulating quietly, with a little groaning is SPINELESS and UNAMERICAN.

Do we need the French to teach us how to do this?

Geez.

[Grasswire2]

126. why are you dissing the French for being expert at demonstrations in the street?

Makes no sense.

[john657]

127. Sorry, I took your post to mean that the French capitulated easily.

I'll delete my post.

[Gothmog]

140. The Democrats are fighting hard to stop this process but lacks the vote

[RandiFan1290]

141. Because