Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[rogue06]

Not just "Democrat heroes", as you like to trivialise it. 900+ Law Professors said in a letter to Senate that Kavanaugh lacks 'Judicial Temperament.'

Considering that "U.S. law schools employed 10,232 full-time faculty and 17,021 part-time faculty" that means something like 0.03% signed the letter. I'm pretty sure you can get 0.03% of any group to sign a letter for virtually anything.

[Tassman]

Considering that "U.S. law schools employed 10,232 full-time faculty and 17,021 part-time faculty" that means something like 0.03% signed the letter. I'm pretty sure you can get 0.03% of any group to sign a letter for virtually anything.

Law professors are not going to sign "virtually anything", they have a professional reputation to maintain. And, where are the 900+ Law professors signing a letter opposing this highly negative view of Kavanaugh by their colleagues?

[JimL]

Did you complain this much about Senate "gerrymandering" when it resulted in the Democrats having a filibuster-proof majority in the chamber back in 2009?

The point is that no matter the ideology of the state, whether red or blue, the representation in the Senate between large and small states is unbalanced. whether populated by 5 million people or by 40 million people they each get 2 Senators. Being that the Senate, the policy decisions voted on, the Judges confirmed, have national implications, that, in my opinion is ridiculous.

[JimL]

And with that jimmy discloses for all to see that he is utterly clueless about what gerrymandering is. He's obviously dimly aware that it isn't a good think but like some 4-year-old who heard a grown-up use a word he doesn't understand he's going to start using it even when it is inappropriate to do so.

No, you're obviously just too dumb to understand the point I was making. Not surprising!

[lilpixieofterror]

The point is that no matter the ideology of the state, whether red or blue, the representation in the Senate between large and small states is unbalanced. whether populated by 5 million people or by 40 million people they each get 2 Senators. Being that the Senate, the policy decisions voted on, the Judges confirmed, have national implications, that, in my opinion is ridiculous.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, you're obviously just too dumb to understand the point I was making. Not surprising!

[JimL]

Now that liberals appear to be the national majority, he's fine with tyranny by the majority...

Actually it's you who are in favor of tyranny, but it's a tyranny of the conservative minority over the Liberal majority that suits you. Well that scam is finally coming to an end my ignorant friend.

[lilpixieofterror]

Actually it's you who are in favor of tyranny, but it's a tyranny of the conservative minority over the Liberal majority that suits you. Well that scam is finally coming to an end my ignorant friend.

Basically same electorate elected a democrat majority 10 years ago. Try again sore loser.

[JimL]

Poor ignorant lilpix, doesn't understand how republicans can use the Senate in all the small states like Wyoming with a population of 500,000 to force their will on the great majority of the Country like Californians whose population is 40 million.

[Mountain Man]

Liberals don't seem to understand that our Founding Fathers deliberately designed a government that at its best could only move at a snail's pace. There's a saying that goes something like, "Crippling bureaucracy is a necessary impediment to prevent governments from efficiently becoming evil."

[lilpixieofterror]

Poor ignorant lilpix, doesn't understand how republicans can use the Senate in all the small states like Wyoming with a population of 500,000 to force their will on the great majority of the Country like Californians whose population is 40 million.

[Sparko]

They are naturally gerrymandered. Small states with very small populations get 2 Senators, the same as large states with huge populations. The Senate has nation wide implications, such as the confirmation of SC Justices, so the representation should be population appropriate. 10 people shouldn't have more representative power in the Senate than a million people.

Most of the small states are in the upper east, which is all liberal. So liberals get states like Rhode Island and Connecticut which have low populations and still get two Senators, even though more populous states like Texas only get two.

Your argument not only fails, but you also fail to understand the purpose of the Senate. It is to give all states equal representation in the Union. So one state can't bully another.

The House is where the people get their representation by population. That is why we have a congress with a House and a Senate.

You really need to go back and take a civics course.

[Sparko]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/just...house-majority

Well they did win a House majority, big time.

[JimL]

Most of the small states are in the upper east, which is all liberal. So liberals get states like Rhode Island and Connecticut which have low populations and still get two Senators, even though more populous states like Texas only get two.

Your argument not only fails, but you also fail to understand the purpose of the Senate. It is to give all states equal representation in the Union. So one state can't bully another.

The House is where the people get their representation by population. That is why we have a congress with a House and a Senate.

You really need to go back and take a civics course.

Oh I see, that must be why the great majority of the people are for background checks on guns and yet Congress is unable to do anything about it.

[One Bad Pig]

Look! Squirrel!

Fixed that for you.