don't be obtuse, no one suggested the nomination itself was the power grab.
maybe take a closer look at their comments, stances, and records concerning the executive branch. maybe you will realise that a supreme court pick is more than the mere process of doing it.

http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf

I dont particularly like Kavanaugh but pretending nominating him and Gorsuch (who so far is one of the best justices in history) is some extreme and unusual power grab is delusional.

Who do you imagine the democrats prefer to nominate? it sure as shit isn't people who love strictly limited government power and properly following the constitution.

He put forth a law adding justices after winning a landslide election, got shot down by the general public, and dropped it.



He has been a SCOTUS for barely a couple years...and he's greater than the greats? Lol Cam, hitting the sauce tonight again.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 19 2019 05:24pm

not only did you have to change the description from 'massive' to 'extreme and unusual' in order to make your 'argument', you also haven't familiarised yourself with their stances on the powers of the executive branch (or the other topics i mentioned, like corporate power and worker rights - something gorsuch is particularly bad about, voting rights, or women's rights...).

again, it's not the act of nominating them (generously ignoring that republicans obstructed a new nominee for a record time under obama, to outright steal a scotus pick) which is the power grab, it's the extremely partisan, corporate and executive power friendly candidates that were chosen. i genuinely did not expect anyone to struggle that much with that distinction...

i'm listening though, explain to me how merrick garland would have been worse in those areas - if you can.

This post was edited by fender on Aug 19 2019 05:38pm

A pretty heinous and dastardly use of synonyms. You got me.



fabricated accusation.



https://reason.com/2016/03/30/merrick-garland-extremist

https://reason.com/2017/04/19/gorsuch-is-more-liberal-than-garland

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 19 2019 05:35pm

Can I make a new topic Trump 2020?

This one is old and not sure if Clinton will run again next year

so you can't argue how he would have been worse in any of those areas, you can just link articles to opinion pieces from some libertarian rag, addressing completely different issues?

just to be clear, if your point is that you

- don't want to strengthen worker's rights against corporations
- think money should remain speech in the context of political participation
- agree that the president should be above the law
.
.
.

then fair enough, they ARE 'better' judges than garland - but then there's no point in disagreeing with my statement about all these issues. let's keep the goal posts where they are and tell me how trump's nominees do NOT stand for what i listed above please...
try using your own words to explain - if you can.

This post was edited by fender on Aug 19 2019 05:54pm

No TDS Cathy, linking you to articles does not mean i can't argue how he would have been worse.




The point is that Garland was known for siding with the government, but you want to pretend that appointing a much better justice instead is evidence of a massive power grab by president Trump.
Its nonsensical.

prove it then, camboy. and please address the issues i mentioned, not some unrelated criticisms that right wingers had for him, that just happened to pop up when you googled him earlier.



nominating judges that think the president is above the law IS an executive power grab. you personally liking them better doesn't mean you addressed or even refuted my point. stay on topic if you can, and illustrate how garland would be any worse on the issues i called those judges out for, which triggered you to comment on this in the first place.