I would say, most probably so.

Because it is so clear,
(as was also stated on this form by a Moderator),
that a person, of one group, who shows,
ANY,
regard, respect, for a person of another group.

That person is, eaten alive, by their OWN group !

Yes, we Liberals are terrible,... (especially the one that's a moderator)
Trumpeteers would never do that... They never turn on their own for speaking truth...
Jeff Flake, Steve Schmidt, Corker, Bush 1, Bush 2, Jeb, Graham, Kasich, McCain,


Seriously?...  

I don't care whether JFK liked M&M's or not,... I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy...

If you want to disown people that don't believe in the fundamentals of your party,.. start with tRump...

T And T Garage wrote on 08/02/18 at 09:27:48:


I don’t recall her saying that....
I will look again.
She talked about the litmus test of Row vs. Wade and how 41, I think the number was, republicans voted to affirm Ruth based on her overall qualifications....
That sureis missing in today’s environment.

T And T Garage wrote on 08/02/18 at 10:22:48:


Interesting.....
Yeah, I read right through that.
Upon your observation/link, I don’tread it, and maybe that is why I didn’t assign it the same value (?) as you...
But I see the remark more like this: “Being appointed by Republicans, he shares a lot of their political views/beliefs, and is amply qualified as such.”

You want to explain your take?

BTW, not sure, but it seems republican nominated judges have swung more votes than democrat nominated ones.
I think however, that is changing a bit, and when Ruth is gone, even more so.

Note: I wonder how much they do agree, on other matters that don’t bring the political and media fanfare?

Dude, can’t you back up your statement?
Who is better, why?
If not, or you decline, why make it in the first place, jeez...

Let's face it, none of us are involved in the day to day workings of legal rulings and opinions. We don't know crap about any of these people other than what someone writes about them which confirms what we wanted to hear in the first place.

As to who would have been better?  Amul Thapar for one.  He may be conservative leaning, but in my opinion, seems to make his decisions base purely on the law.  
Joan Larsen for another.  She would have the least experience per se, but she's been a law professor and clerked for Scalia.  
Federico Moreno as another.  Appointed by HW Bush to Florida's Southern US District Court, he also seems to follow the law and precedent.

Of course, these are just my opinions.  I have little doubt that Kavanaugh will be on the bench.  I just hope the hearings hold him to task.  There are a couple of questionable rulings in his past.

Are you tying to tell us you've studied the legal rulings of those three judges, before Kavanagh was appointed, in such detail you can state opinions such as Moreno for example 'seems to follow the law and precedent'?

Without looking up cases or opinions online, what rulings and opinions  have these three made in the past that impressed you? It seems to me if I was going to say Moreno 'seems to follow the law and precedent' I would have to know many cases she was involved in and read them in great detail.

Because I'm reminded when Senator Leahy was doing an interview and basically said he didn't think, from reading his previous opinions, that Clarence Thomas had the 'depth' to be on the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, the reported asked for specific opinions that Thomas authored that Leahy found lacking. Of course he couldn't name anything, it was obvious he had never read a Thomas opinion in his life.