world

Democrats slam White House for withholding documents on Supreme Court nominee

41 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Let's all remember that when Trump warned his followers about Hillary Clinton potentially being in this position of appointing judges who would rule on her hypothetical-but-lacking-evidence corruption, he lamented that the only possible solution would be from "second amendment people".

It's disturbing that he had the audacity to suggest his opponent was so corrupt that the only way to beat her would have been to murder her, and now that he is actually in the same position but with evidence against him mounting, suddenly he thinks it's not corruption anymore.

The whole Rupublican party has abandoned all moral principles whatsoever. They are nakedly serving their own self-interest. Kavanaugh must not be appointed.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Democrats slam White House for withholding documents on Supreme Court nominee

they're right.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Brett Kavanaugh was chosen specifically for his views on presidential indemnification for crimes against the Constitution.

It is clear that Kavanaugh is too biased and too politically motivated to uphold the intended mission of this court. It is also very clear that the people knowing trying to put Kavanaugh into the court have no concept of fairness or impartiality. In short, Kavanaugh is a danger to our Constitution and our democracy. As conscientious Americans, we should let our Senators and Congressmen know that we strenuously object to Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Aly RustomToday  07:59 am JST

Democrats slam White House for withholding documents on Supreme Court nominee

they're right.

And you’re right.

It goes without saying, the Democrats are absolutely correct to slam the White House on this matter.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

“Elections have consequences.”

President Obama
9 ( +12 / -3 )

Poor little Democrats haven't been getting their way lately.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

“Elections have consequences.”President Obama

President Obama was elected by electoral college AND popular vote - BOTH times. Benedict Donald wasn't.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Gremlin.Gaijin-

Thanks for the support brother!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

He's a partisan warrior and an ideologue. He doesn't belong on the court. Justices like that erode the public trust in the court. We should put legal technocrats on the court.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Putin, Trump & Pence. Make Russia great again.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Democrats on Sunday criticized the Trump administration for refusing to release thousands of documents

Trump and the GOP must be afraid of showing something. They're in complete control now and will do anything to protect themselves and the .01% they represent. The tax breaks they've given themselves and their wealthiest backers are making them richer.

Speaking of being afraid to show things, Trump said he'd show his income taxes. (Not the old ones Maddow was stiffd with.) Maybe Mueller's team can shine a light on where all he's got investments and where his 'loans' have come from.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Gotta give it to the left, they will try anything and make any excuse to try and stop something they cannot. But watching them get frustrated is a joy to watch.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Brett Kavanaugh was chosen specifically for his views on presidential indemnification for crimes against the Constitution.

Crazy Joe, great post. It does become a bit worrisome when SCOTUS nominees are chosen by their likelihood to protect the nominator from crimes.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

He was against the NSA’s unconstitutional actions, got Bill Clinton impeached, and declared Obamacare to be a form of taxation. He’s a great pick for sure.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

It does become a bit worrisome when SCOTUS nominees are chosen by their likelihood to protect the nominator from crimes.

Like Ginsberg and Breyer did?

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Like Ginsberg and Breyer did?

No. Clinton's impeachment was in 1998 based on an affair which took place between 1995 and 1997, but Justice Ginsberg was nominated in 1993 and Breyer in 1994. Both of their nominations predate any thought of Clinton's impeachment.

As a tip, it helps your argument if you are able to keep your timeline correct.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Trump and the GOP must be afraid of showing something.

Gee, now where have I heard that one before....lol

They're in complete control now and will do anything to protect themselves and the .01% they represent.

Oh, this all sounds way too familiar.

The tax breaks they've given themselves and their wealthiest backers are making them richer. 

But you guys don’t call out the richest people on the planet which are liberals, so I guys these people are enjoying the cuts, those darn rich liberals.

Speaking of being afraid to show things, Trump said he'd show his income taxes. (Not the old ones Maddow was stiffd with.)

Someone stole them without his permission. I would have sued that network for all that it’s worth, but Karma Andy Lack will soon be out of a job anyway, so....

Maybe Mueller's team can shine a light on where all he's got investments and where his 'loans' have come from.

Good luck with that.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

But you guys don’t call out the richest people on the planet which are liberals, so I guys these people are enjoying the cuts, those darn rich liberals.

Yes. Rich liberals getting tax cuts is bad. Perhaps some give that money to charity, but the Federal Government can spend it better. Higher taxes on the wealthy, whether liberal, conservative, or socialist, leads to prosperity, as we saw in the 1950s-70s with the so-called "Golden Age of Capitalism", when taxes on top earners exceeded 70%.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

As a tip, it helps your argument if you are able to keep your timeline correct.

Excuse me, I was talking about 1998-2016 both Breyer and Ginsberg were partisan SCJ. That voted not by the constitution, but by party lines.

Yes. Rich liberals getting tax cuts is bad. Perhaps some give that money to charity, but the Federal Government can spend it better.

Ha! That was the funniest thing I heard so far this year.

Higher taxes on the wealthy, whether liberal, conservative, or socialist, leads to prosperity, as we saw in the 1950s-70s

You are joking ride? You’re talking when gas was under a buck. Lol

with the so-called "Golden Age of Capitalism", when taxes on top earners exceeded 70%.

The Reagan and Clinton years were great and now I’m getting that glowing feeling all over again, as does Wall St. and corporations. Winning.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Oh was he? I remember him losing the popular vote in the Democratic primary. Yet somehow he won that anyway and then became President too.

President Obama was elected by electoral college AND popular vote - BOTH times. Benedict Donald wasn't.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Does anyone really think the people complaining have read even 1% of the 400,000+ documents they were already given?

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Hmm. A conundrum for conservatives: demanding Hillary's emails be released, but sitting on Kavanaugh's.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Excuse me, I was talking about 1998-2016 both Breyer and Ginsberg were partisan SCJ. That voted not by the constitution, but by party lines.

No, you were talking about a SCJ protecting their nominator from criminal proceedings. As a further tip, it helps if you can keep your story straight.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Crazy: "It is clear that Kavanaugh is too biased and too politically motivated to uphold the intended mission of this court."

Specifics, please.

Kavanaugh will be confirmed and the Clintons are officially on notice.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Hmm. A conundrum for conservatives: demanding Hillary's emails be released, but sitting on Kavanaugh's.

But you guys are just blown away that conservatives won’t hand over Kavanaugh’s records. Typical left hypocrites. Anyway, he’s going to be confirmed, so why try and stop the inevitable?

No, you were talking about a SCJ protecting their nominator from criminal proceedings. As a further tip, it helps if you can keep your story straight

Sorry, I was talking about how Ginsberg and Breyer will always vote party line, so if it’s ok for the left to have SCJ in their pockets it’s good enough for conservatives as well.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Sorry, I was talking about how Ginsberg and Breyer will always vote party line, so if it’s ok for the left to have SCJ in their pockets it’s good enough for conservatives as well.

No, you weren't. It's in black and white. Laguna said that they were concerned that a SCJ was being chosen for the sole purpose of protecting their nominator. You then said "like Ginsberg and Breyer". No-one had brought up partisan voting.

If this is what you were referring to, it's better to put it in your post, rather than assuming that posters can read your mind. Just another tip for you.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Yes, I was specifically talking about how Ginsberg and Breyer will always vote party line, so if it’s ok for the left to have SCJ in their pockets it’s good enough for conservatives as well. Now I when these judges take a partisan stance, are you ok with it? If so, then it should be a problem if a Republican President wants to pick a strong conservative. As a conservative, I’m excited about it, so I’m just waiting on Ginsberg and Breyer to call it quits....not much longer. A conservative Supreme Court....wow!

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Could you tell me where in the following exchange partisan voting is mentioned or meant to be inferred?

Laguna: It does become a bit worrisome when SCOTUS nominees are chosen by their likelihood to protect the nominator from crimes.

bass4funk: Like Ginsberg and Breyer did?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Yes, I was specifically talking about how Ginsberg and Breyer will always vote party line, 

You sound a little like your idol Rush Limbaugh when he called Chelsea a dog and then claimed it was his staff confusing photos. That's the gimmick of a real pro, bro!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Does anyone really think the people complaining have read even 1% of the 400,000+ documents they were already given?

Repubs have requested over twice that many from the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling, claiming “oversight.” My guess is it’s north of a million documents by now.

I believe some people are upset at the pace they are receiving the documents, even justifying trying to impeach Rosenstein for it.

Now we have an actual legitimate oversight issue with picking a SCJ, and suddenly it’s OK to withhold documents entirely? If you say so. You’re just keeping yourself in the dark and working against your own self interests.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@bass

protect the nominator from crimes = always vote party line

Who wouldn't have thought you meant that?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Heh, liberals upset about missing documents.

Oh, the irony.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Hey I got 11 downvotes for correctly noting that Obama lost the popular vote in the Dem primary in 2008.

Seems the truth doesn’t matter anymore, it’s just how people feel about what is said.same thing for these documents. Didn’t bother to read what they have, just want to complain they don’t have more.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Heh, liberals upset about missing documents.

Oh, the irony.

Well, let's not get started on conservative hypocrisy.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Hey I got 11 downvotes for correctly noting that Obama lost the popular vote in the Dem primary in 2008.

Hey you also forgot to mention that the result of the Michigan contest is what have Clinton that advantage - due to a change in voting dates in Michigan, Obama and every other contestant pulled out - except Clinton. Without counting Michigan, where Clinton arguably ran unopppsed, Obama did win the popular vote.

I hope this has been informative.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

You sound a little like your idol Rush Limbaugh when he called Chelsea a dog and then claimed it was his staff confusing photos. That's the gimmick of a real pro, bro!

Hmmmm....What did Ed Schultz call Laura Ingraham again which ended his career?

protect the nominator from crimes = always vote party line

Who wouldn't have thought you meant that?

Hey, it’s right out of the Democrats playbook and to think some people say, “these people don’t have good ideas.”

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Well, without a lie detector you can’t 100% prove that bass didn’t miss the point entirely, either by design or by accident, so technically you guys are at a draw in the debate. It’s the cornerstone to most of his arguments/positions, 

Someone has the keep the lefts hypocrisy in check.

Repubs have requested over twice that many from the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling, claiming “oversight.” My guess is it’s north of a million documents by now.

I believe some people are upset at the pace they are receiving the documents, even justifying trying to impeach Rosenstein for it. 

And there still a lot of files that the DOJ will not turn over. But it doesn’t matter, Sessions is a deadman Walking.

Now we have an actual legitimate oversight issue with picking a SCJ, and suddenly it’s OK to withhold documents entirely? If you say so. You’re just keeping yourself in the dark and working against your own self interests.

Listen that BS trick the left are trying to do won’t work, the stalling won’t work, the objections won’t work. Get used to it. Kavanaugh will be confirmed 110%. Fait Accompli!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

—You sound a little like your idol Rush Limbaugh when he called Chelsea a dog and then claimed it was his staff confusing photos. That's the gimmick of a real pro, bro!

Hmmmm....What did Ed Schultz call Laura Ingraham again which ended his career

OK then. You sound like Ed Schultz. Better?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hey, it’s right out of the Democrats playbook and to think some people say, “these people don’t have good ideas.”

What about the GOP? They practically invented the word “playbook”. Lol

it doesn’t matter, Sessions is a deadman Walking

Who hired Sessions anyway? That person must be like a smart person and a very stable genius.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Without counting California, Trump won the popular vote too.

Yes it has been very informative that you can now simply ignore what actually happened in order to get any result you want.

Without counting Michigan, where Clinton arguably ran unopppsed, Obama did win the popular vote.

I hope this has been informative.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, they need to confirm Kavanaugh in order to find out what's in his documents.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites