If the FBI finds nothing on Kavanaugh, will democrats vote for him

wildchild

wildchild

The democrats as an entire caucus appear to be against Kavanaugh. There is not a single one of them who will vote for him. If that is the case, why do they also want an FBI investigation? Their decision is already made.

They will all vote 'No' regardless. They are the minority party in Congress. Why does anyone care what they have to say? They are never voting for Kavanaugh.
 
exGOPer said:
Sure, just like you guys heard out non-rapist non-lying non-drunk Merrick Garland and then voted for him because he was none of those things.

No?
More...

Hey Kintacos, I don't remember republicans smearing Garland. Do you?
 
The Republicans failed to follow there constitutional duty to give garland a vote, they could have voted NO and been within there constitutional rights but failed to uphold the constitution so why honor them at all. They all swore an oath to uphold the constitution but failed in there duty to America.
 
bullmarket79 said:
The Republicans failed to follow there constitutional duty to give garland a vote, they could have voted NO and been within there constitutional rights but failed to uphold the constitution so why honor them at all. They all swore an oath to uphold the constitution but failed in there duty to America.
More...


It is more nuanced than that.

The senate does not have a constitutional obligation to vote on a nominee but the Appointments Clause requires Senate approval for any nominee to be confirmed. How the Senate responds to that request is up to the Senate. Doing nothing is an option. And not voting on it because the judicial committee did not vote it out of committee is also an option- and that also is a form of the full senate not voting on it. And other variations of that.

Having said that, I have stated before that the handling of Merrick Garland's nomination was low-class. The Senate should have at least passed a quick resolution thanking him for his public service and for presenting his credentials and qualifications to the Senate- especially after Trump took office and it was clear that there was no longer a president even requesting his nomination.

Democrats are hardly in a position now, though, to be arguing that supreme court nominees should be treated with courtesy and respect.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Democrats are hardly in a position now, though, to be arguing that supreme court nominees should be treated with courtesy and respect.
More...

Exactly. The Democrats have now established a new low on how all nominees for federal and state positions will be treated. What comes around, goes around. Democrats should have paid attention to the precedent they were setting for the future - orchestrated fictional smear campaigns will now be part of all nominations.

BTW whenever the Democrats nominate anyone for any position in the future I am sure that at least 100 people will come forward claiming to have been sexually assaulted by the individual 35 years ago - irrespective if the nominee is male or female.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
I see. McConnell followed the Biden Rule in regard to not confirming in an election year and now there will be a generation of bad blood because the Biden Rule was supposed to just be used by dems against republicans.

Got it.
More...

Ok. So then that’s it. No confirmation in an election year is justified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top