What A Difference Eight Years Makes

2010: Democrats, impatient to pass a 2000 page bill that would nationalize (in effect) a sixth of the United States economy, give Americans the bum’s rush, saying “we will have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”.

2018: Democrats, frantic to stop Donald Trump from empaneling a solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court, claim to have plenty of time to read a purported million pages of documents about Brett Kavanaugh.

12 thoughts on “What A Difference Eight Years Makes

  1. Wait I thought the crux of A-Klo and others argument is that the Trump administration is supposedly withholding millions of documents that will “reveal why he is unfit to serve on the SCOTUS”. Then again I havent been following it terribly closely

  2. Maybe they’ve learned to read in the interim? I doubt they’ve learned to reason, but it could be they’ve taken some reading lessons. After all, there was much in the bill that they wrote that they didn’t know about.

  3. If you need to look into a person’s background to decide whether to vote to confirm, that’s one thing.

    If you’ve already decided, what’s the point of looking at documents?

    Can’t we just cut to the chase, vote along party lines, and move along to something else?

  4. Joe back before confirmation to SCOTUS became a partisan hackfest they took advise and consent seriously. Now its window dressing at best. Still have to go through the motions

  5. I like Sen. Harris’ legal question of whether both sides were at fault in Charlottesville, which Kavanaugh sensibly refused to answer. Um, this would reveal his judicial temperament exactly how? Even better was her question of whether he’d ever discussed any portion of the Mueller investigations with any employee of a law firm that employs 350 lawyers. You’re going to get that whenever you go out to dinner in DC.

    And then you’ve got Booker’s rage at asking about racial profiling–and in September 2001, as if the deaths of 3000 people in terrorist attacks linked to a particular demographic didn’t justify some speculation into the matter.

  6. One nice thing about the hearings – the wailing and gnashing about Roe v. Wade being in jeopardy validates what Conservatives have been saying about abortion rights since 1973.

    If abortion rights were originally intended to be covered by the Constitution, then appointing another Original Intent guy to the Supreme Court wouldn’t put abortion rights in jeopardy.

    Abortion rights are in jeopardy only because they were NOT originally intended to be covered by the Constitution and everybody knows it. That’s why the Left can’t afford to let an Original Intent scholar onto the Court – he threatens all the made-up rights invented under the “living document” scam.

    First, abortion. Next, gay marriage. Then, sanctuary for fugitive illegal immigrants and maybe after that, man-portable shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. Can’t wait.

  7. The question I have is gay marriage worth the potential literal civil war it will cause in this country, I know enough people the community that I could easily see them violently go into the streets and start killing people if thats overturned. I am not exaggerating, people are willing to kill/die over this and I really believe I am not being hyperbolic.

  8. Regarding POD’s comment, it strikes me–as someone who opposed and still opposes same sex mirage–that the best thing to do to deal with the issue is simply to reinforce a fact that wasn’t mentioned much in the debates; government recognition of marriage and family law isn’t because government is into love and pretty wedding cakes and the like. It’s intended to protect the vulnerable–children, women around the ages of childbearing, etc..–when a relationship ends or goes sour.

    And in that light, if a few couples with no obvious “weaker vessel” get married, does it then matter that much? Some will do so, some will see there’s not a huge point to it, live and let live.

  9. At my core I opposed and still do oppose the practice too. I just dont think its worth the fight. And trying to use logic to argue with hardcore LBTQwhateverthefuckitisnow people BB have you lost your mind? Logic hasnt been part of the leftist playbook in 30+ years man.

  10. First Mitch, you’re wrong, Senators and Reps got MONTHS of time to review drafts and proposals. Repugs were not cut out of the discussions. They got several days to review the final version, saying otherwise is just Fake News. But hey, nothing new, more lies


    By contrast, your favorite Oligarchs released 50,000 pages of documents the night before a hearing..

    Not the same, not even close.

  11. Um, Pen, 300 pages of the bill were introduced the night of the vote. No, they did not get adequate time, and even if you were correct, “several days” is not indeed sufficient time to debate a bill that effects 2-3 trillion dollars in annual GDP. Not.Even.Close. The f-ups inherent in the bill–all those premium hikes, all those state exchanges going under, etc..–are because Democrats did not listen to anyone who understood one whit about economics and insurance.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.