Guys, Jesus. Whatever. Let's move on. Damn.

Post a picture, then spend half a page talking about what it means or was supposed to mean, or what you think it means. Really, come on.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There is a very entertaining and informative essay by Jonah Goldberg, too lengthy to inflict in full here, but exceedingly worth a read.

The Price of Victory

:

“Sick of a Republican party that tried too hard to work within the borders of what the mainstream media deemed acceptable rhetoric and tactics, [Trump’s] voters loved it when he gleefully singled out reporters by name, like a kid going after ants with a magnifying glass on a summer day.
…
“The problem for journalists is that, having refused at every turn to learn their lessons, from Walter Duranty to Daniel Schorr to Dan Rather, they have repeatedly responded by doubling down on their worst instincts and groupthink. And now, as Trump turns his MAGAfying glass on them, they are intensifying their worst habits.”

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Merrick Garland isn’t as leftist as Zippy’s previous SCOTUS nominees. But if the Dems had taken the senate Zippy would’ve withdrawn his nomination and put forth a full nut leftist.

Agreed - it was Obama daring McConnell - either approve an older, mostly centrist SCOTUS judge for him (Garland), or roll the dice and when Hillary likely won, deal with a full on radical leftist. Hillary likely would have width-drawn him and put up one of her nutty picks.

McConnell rolled the Hard 6 in betting on the American people and Trump.

I am glad you all are so happy but I am holding my breath until the final vote at five tonight. I just don’t trust the GDCs and what they might pull at the last minute.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There is a very entertaining and informative essay by Jonah Goldberg, too lengthy to inflict in full here, but exceedingly worth a read.

The Price of Victory

An excellent analysis of the current climate, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
^^^^
I agree. Garland isn't a left wing hack. He seemed pretty anti-gun but a centerist in most other things.

And minds can be changed. Witness certain allegedly "conservative" justices that turned out to be not so conservative, after all.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Want to see the left go nuts? Have Trump nominate him to replace RGB. The'll go all in assassinating his character.

I'll probably get a crapton of pushback on this, but I'd be perfectly fine if Trump did that, because it would put the left in an entirely untenable position, and, as noted, Garland ain't all that bad.

I've seen various times for the confirmation vote. Examples:

3 to 5
4 to 5
5 pm

CBS says

The final Senate vote is likely to occur at around 5 p.m. ET, with an expected 50-48 margin in favor of confirming Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

adding: CSPAN says the vote possible as early as 3:30 pm ET

Remember the horrible protests that took place when Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed for SCOTUS?

Right

Elena Kagan: ‘It’s Not So Clear Whether We’ll Have’ Swing-Vote On SCOTUS

Sorry, I can't seem to find anything in the Constitution about a SCOTUS "swing vote". Maybe you can borrow Ruthie's copy and point out this detail, huh?

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There is a very entertaining and informative essay by Jonah Goldberg, too lengthy to inflict in full here, but exceedingly worth a read.

The Price of Victory

Thanks JALLEN, that was great!

Agreed. Thank you for posting.

I loved this part especially:

"My favorite fecal nugget in the fog is the reply, again offered hourly, that Republicans have no right to complain about “hardball tactics” because Mitch McConnell declined to give Merrick Garland a hearing. Even if you concede — which I emphatically do not — that what Cocaine Mitch did was an outrage, this argument is so obtuse, so morally stunted, so non-sequiturially nonsensical it fills me with a vein-popping rage that would ruin my chances for confirmation as dog catcher (for which I am eminently qualified, by the way)."

I just sent a short thank you email to Senator Collins even though i'm stuck behind the MA iron curtain. She stepped up big when it was time to go all in. I hope that she and the rest of the super-moderate Republicans have now found their souls.

quote:

Originally posted by Yanert98:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There is a very entertaining and informative essay by Jonah Goldberg, too lengthy to inflict in full here, but exceedingly worth a read.

The Price of Victory

Thanks JALLEN, that was great!

Agreed. Thank you for posting.

I loved this part especially:

"My favorite fecal nugget in the fog is the reply, again offered hourly, that Republicans have no right to complain about “hardball tactics” because Mitch McConnell declined to give Merrick Garland a hearing. Even if you concede — which I emphatically do not — that what Cocaine Mitch did was an outrage, this argument is so obtuse, so morally stunted, so non-sequiturially nonsensical it fills me with a vein-popping rage that would ruin my chances for confirmation as dog catcher (for which I am eminently qualified, by the way)."

I have long disagreed that “icing” Garland was unjustified, let alone an outrage. I believe that was following ample precedent and the Biden Rule, to avoid SC confirmations in a Presidential election year.

So if Daines doesn't come back from his daughters wedding to vote, do you really trust
Murkowski to vote present?

quote:

So if Daines doesn't come back from his daughters wedding to vote, do you really trust
Murkowski to vote present?

McConnell would then hold the vote open until Daines gets back from his daughters wedding. There's no time limit. He would fly back and vote. So... Murkowski would gain nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Remember the horrible protests that took place when Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed for SCOTUS?

Right

Elena Kagan: ‘It’s Not So Clear Whether We’ll Have’ Swing-Vote On SCOTUS

Sorry, I can't seem to find anything in the Constitution about a SCOTUS "swing vote". Maybe you can borrow Ruthie's copy and point out this detail, huh?

Her interview was one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen from a SC justice. Basically an admission that she is a completely entrenched partisan.

What is preventing her from being a swing vote? Why is she locked into the left? She can venture into the middle any time she pleases. She instead wants a Republican president to appoint someone who will agree with her more often rather than someone who shares a conservative judicial philosophy.

quote:

What is preventing her from being a swing vote? Why is she locked into the left? She can venture into the middle any time she pleases. She instead wants a Republican president to appoint someone who will agree with her more often rather than someone who shares a conservative judicial philosophy.

Exactly. Why is it a given that a Democrat President will appoint hard-core leftists to the Court, who should be approved without question, but that there should be a battle to the death when a Republican appoints someone who wants to interpret the Constitution as it is written rather than how they want it to be?

This is for you guys that still aren't sleeping well at night over your SCOTUS concerns.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
This is for you guys that still aren't sleeping well at night over your SCOTUS concerns.

Amen

We are winning!

Thursday night on Tucker, the subject of investigation and potential prosecution of Julie Swetnick was raised in a conversation between Tucker and Alan Dershowitz. Like those people whose names were given to the FBI in an attempt to corroborate Christine Ford’s allegations (e.g. Leland Keyser), Swetnick also filed a sworn statement “under penalty of perjury,” in making her outlandish accusations.

Dershowitz said that Swetnick’s claims are demonstrably false and that it appears Kavanaugh and her never met. He says Swetnick should be brought to trial and if convicted, be sentenced for perjury. Avanatti should also be prosecuted. Dershowitz said that a false affidavit cannot be allowed to remain “on the record” if information exists that it’s false. If the “under penalty of felony perjury” statement we heard so often during Senate Judiciary Committee testimony is to mean anything, this has to be addressed. Further, the two of them said that as important as it is to protect rape victims, it is equally important to protect those falsely accused of such a heinous crime.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The Price of Victory

Considering what it took to get this far, and considering what the Dems did to prevent the confirmation, I'm kinda confused. He wants to be able to throw away a hard-won bird in hand because the Dems will claim that the SCOTUS is biased, and he'd be willing to do so if {miraculus mirabilis} the Dems came out and abjectly apologized for their behavior. I think we ought to go ahead and go through the process of fighting it out - lance the boil rather than hoping it'll just go away or waiting until the Donkeys decide to take a road trip to Tarsus.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
This is for you guys that still aren't sleeping well at night over your SCOTUS concerns.
]

I think you are overestimating the amount of stress people currently have over this. Discussion doesn’t equal stress. It’s a discussion forum and it’s a pretty important even in our lives. Just because people are discussing it doesn’t mean they are losing sleep over it.