Why did Christine Blasey Ford lie saying she has a fear of flying?

Revealing Times

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2016
2,845
420
59
Clanton Alabama
✟108,106.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Huh? What are you babbling about? A lawyer asked Ford to clarify and she did. Somehow, this is being seen as worse than Watergate for...some reason. I don't even know.

What I do know is that Kav repeatedly lied and Ford was never shown to have any major inconsistencies.
Ringo
supreme-court-kavanaugh-regulations-e1533931759486.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Yep...if you're a privileged white man who lies and sexually assaults women, you can be rewarded with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

Disgraceful.
Ringo
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,496
11,193
✟213,086.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Here's what Mitch McConnell said:
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: "The confirmation process for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, one of the most qualified and most impressive Supreme Court nominees in our nation’s history, is moving forward. On Friday, the Judiciary Committee reported his nomination favorably. Then, here on the floor, we officially moved to take up the nomination. Every Republican member of the Committee agreed that Judge Kavanaugh should be reported out with a favorable recommendation. And every Democrat voted in opposition.

“Now, that last part shouldn’t really surprise anyone. Democrats have made no real attempt to disguise that this was a pure partisan calculation for them from the very beginning. Several of them had announced their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination long before his original hearings even began. Before they had questioned him on his judicial record they deem so problematic. And in some cases, before he—or anyone--had even been nominated. And they didn’t mince words: The way one Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee put it, supporters of Judge Kavanaugh are -- quote – ‘complicit in the evil.’ That’s a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee.

“Another Democrat on the Committee, before Judge Kavanaugh was even named, described in almost apocalyptic terms the consequences of whomever the president might nominate. Here is the quote: ‘We are looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell.’ And here was the Democratic Leader, just hours after Judge Kavanaugh was nominated: ‘I will oppose him with everything I’ve got.’ Well, they’ve certainly done just that.

“The ranking Democrat on the Committee first heard from Dr. Ford on July 30th. Did our colleague alert the Chairman, so the Committee could do due diligence in a confidential way, consistent with Dr. Ford’s wishes? No, she did not. Did she discreetly raise the issue with Judge Kavanaugh during her private meeting with him on August 20th? No, she didn’t do that either. As best we can tell, the Democrats chose to keep this allegation secret, rather than investigating in a bipartisan and timely way. In fact, they held it in reserve.

“But meanwhile, the senior Senator from California -- or her office -- were already in communication with Dr. Ford. In fact, her office had already recommended that Dr. Ford retain a particular Washington D.C. law firm. Now, this firm in question is not exactly foreign to Democrat politics. Two of its founding partners -- including one of the attorneys who personally appeared at the hearing to represent Dr. Ford -- had until recently been scheduled to host a fundraiser for one of our Senate Democratic colleagues tonight.

“By the way, the firm had also represented, in another matter, the person who has made the most salacious and disgusting accusations against Judge Kavanaugh as a high school student. This is the firm which Judiciary Committee Democrats recommended to Dr. Ford. Not long thereafter, of course, Dr. Ford’s letter to the senior Senator from California wound up in the hands of the press. The same letter in which she’d asked for confidentiality -- leaked.

“By whom? As best I can tell, nobody had possession of this letter except for Dr. Ford’s Democrat congresswoman, the Democrat side of the Judiciary Committee and, presumably, the politically-connected lawyers they recommended to Dr. Ford. And somehow -- somehow -- it ended up in the press. Dr. Ford’s plea for privacy was brushed aside. A predictable media circus was launched. Of course, the questionable and concerning handling of this matter didn’t stop there.

“In her testimony, Dr. Ford seemed surprised that Chairman Grassley had offered her legal team a number of more discreet and less burdensome ways to share her story if she preferred. The Chairman had offered to fly investigators to California, or anywhere else, for a private interview at a time and place of Dr. Ford’s choosing. But apparently, neither our Democratic colleagues nor the lawyers they recommended felt it was necessary to make these options clear to Dr. Ford. She told the committee last week, quote, ‘I wasn’t clear on what the offer was…[I would have] been happy to speak with you out there...it wasn’t clear to me that was the case.’

“So, let’s take stock of all this. The ranking member withheld serious allegations from Committee colleagues, precluding any chance that they be handled with sensitivity and discretion. Meanwhile, her staff made recommendations that the accuser retain specific, politically-connected counsel. Then, her confidential account reached the media faster than it reached either the chairman of the Committee or the FBI, which our colleagues have been insisting must look into it.

“And finally, we have reason to believe that Dr. Ford was not even apprised of the Chairman’s offers to collect her testimony in ways that might have been less likely to create a media circus and less burdensome on her. It’s almost as if Dr. Ford didn’t want a Washington D.C.-based media circus -- but others with whom she was in contact, and on whom she was relying, wanted exactly that.

“So we have learned that, if you confide in Senate Democrats on a highly sensitive personal matter, no request for confidentiality will keep you from becoming a household name. And if you’re a nominee whose judicial philosophy Senate Democrats deem to be objectionable, no centuries-old standard of presumed innocence will protect your name, your family, or your reputation from irreparable damage.

“Fortunately, Chairman Grassley has taken action to clean up this mess. Last Thursday, he supervised a professional and respectful hearing. He retained an experienced sex crimes prosecutor to methodically collect the details of Dr. Ford’s recollections. This is a professional who was recognized as ‘Outstanding Arizona Sexual Assault Prosecutor of the Year’ by former Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano -- a former cabinet secretary of President Obama, and herself a member of Anita Hill’s legal team in 1991.

“Here’s what she wrote in her memo to members following the hearing:

“Quote: ‘A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that…’

“Quote: ‘Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegation or failed to corroborate them...’

“Quote: ‘I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I think that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.’ That is a lower standard.

“Will our Democratic colleagues listen to this expert opinion, although it conflicts with their political mission? Don’t hold your breath. Nor am I optimistic they will stay consistent and accept the conclusions of the supplemental background investigation the FBI is now conducting, on top of its six prior investigations of Judge Kavanaugh. Democrats demanded this supplemental investigation. They proclaimed it would be a game-changer.

“The Democratic Leader and the ranking Democrat on the Committee both said recently that an FBI investigation can be completed in less than a week. But I’d bet almost anything that -- after it runs its course in the next few days -- we will then be treated to a lecture that anything short of a totally unbounded fishing expedition of indefinite duration is too limited, or too arbitrary, or somehow insufficient. We all know that’s coming.

“If you listen carefully, you can practically hear the sounds of the Democrats moving the goalposts. Remember back in the summer? Democrats said there weren’t enough documents to get a good sense of Judge Kavanaugh’s career. Then we heard there were too many documents. Then, once Dr. Ford’s private allegation was mysteriously made public, we couldn’t possibly move forward until we heard from them both.

“Then, after neither the hearing nor the statements of supposed witnesses yielded any corroborating evidence -- and, in fact, produced evidence that supported Judge Kavanaugh -- we were told only an FBI investigation would resolve this, and that it could be done promptly. Well, let me go way out on a limb. Let me make a small prediction. Soon enough, the goalposts will be on the move once again. I would respectfully say to my colleagues: Do these actions suggest this has ever been about finding the truth? Does anybody believe that? Do these actions suggest this has ever been about giving Judge Kavanaugh a fair hearing?

“This institution has seen before episodes somewhat like what we’re now seeing from some of our colleagues across the aisle. Back during the McCarthy Era in 1950, character assassination and uncorroborated allegations were being utilized in a very different debate in that era. That’s when a distinguished Senator from Maine named Margaret Chase Smith -- an icon from the great state of our colleague Senator Collins -- took to the Senate floor to say enough was enough.

“She gave a speech that guaranteed she’d be in the history of the Senate. She titled it her ‘Declaration of Conscience.’ Here’s what she said: ‘I do not like the way in which the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity.’ Margaret Chase Smith went on: ‘Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.’ We should listen to these words. They speak as loudly today as they did 68 years ago.

“In my judgment, the pattern of behavior we have seen confirms what Democrats’ own public statements have told us: They are committed to delaying, obstructing, and resisting this nomination with everything they’ve got. They just want to delay this matter past the election. That’s not my supposition. That’s their plan, according to another Democratic Member of the Judiciary Committee, the junior Senator from Hawaii.

“So soon, I expect, we’ll hear that the conclusions of the expert prosecutor who questioned both witnesses at last week’s hearing aren’t reliable. Or that the FBI’s investigation was not infinite or endless enough for their liking. Maybe we’ll hear that the real issue is not these uncorroborated allegations of misconduct, after all. But rather the fact that Judge Kavanaugh – now listen to this – drank beer in high school and college. Or the fact that he was rightfully angry – who wouldn’t be – that his good name and his family have been dragged through the mud with a campaign of character assassination based on allegations that lack any corroboration. Who wouldn’t be angry about that?

“Their goalposts keep shifting -- but their goal has not moved an inch. The goal’s been the same all along. And so the time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close. Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is out of Committee. We are considering it here on the floor. And we’ll be voting this week.”

 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Mitch said:
“Now, that last part shouldn’t really surprise anyone. Democrats have made no real attempt to disguise that this was a pure partisan calculation for them from the very beginning. Several of them had announced their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination long before his original hearings even began. Before they had questioned him on his judicial record they deem so problematic. And in some cases, before he—or anyone--had even been nominated. And they didn’t mince words: The way one Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee put it, supporters of Judge Kavanaugh are -- quote – ‘complicit in the evil.’ That’s a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee.

This from the man who declared, before Scalia's body had cooled down, that he'd oppose any nominee Obama put forth and proceeded to hold Merrick Garland in limbo for something like 300 days.

McConnell is not just a liar, but the worst kind of hypocrite.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,496
11,193
✟213,086.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
This from the man who declared, before Scalia's body had cooled down, that he'd oppose any nominee Obama put forth and proceeded to hold Merrick Garland in limbo for something like 300 days.

McConnell is not just a liar, but the worst kind of hypocrite.
Ringo
Apples and oranges. Garland was no Scalia. It was at the end of Obama's second term and would have been Obama's third judge put on the Supreme Court. And there wasn't an attempt to destroy Garland's life with baseless smears. So there's no comparison. If Kavanaugh gets confirmed it would be like how Obama got two on the SCOTUS. A comparable situation to Garland would be if Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat opens up when Trump is in the forth year of his second term as president.
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Apples and oranges. Garland was no Scalia.

Garland was a highly qualified judge who was praised across bipartisan lines.

It was at the end of Obama's second term and would have been Obama's third judge put on the Supreme Court.

Which nothing in the Supreme Court prevents. As a matter of fact, Andrew Jackson got five over two terms:

List of Presidents of the United States by judicial appointments - Wikipedia

And there wasn't an attempt to destroy Garland's life with baseless smears.

So-called ""smears"" that are so ""baseless"" that witnesses who wanted to come forward during the investigation were not contacted by the FBI, and Kavanaugh lied repeatedly.

So there's no comparison. If Kavanaugh gets confirmed it would be like how Obama got two on the SCOTUS.

Not at all, since Obama didn't steal one Supreme Court seat and then appoint a probable rapist to the other one.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Revealing Times

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2016
2,845
420
59
Clanton Alabama
✟108,106.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
This from the man who declared, before Scalia's body had cooled down, that he'd oppose any nominee Obama put forth and proceeded to hold Merrick Garland in limbo for something like 300 days.

McConnell is not just a liar, but the worst kind of hypocrite.
Ringo
Worked out nice didn't it ? The gig is up, why do liberals want to place people on the courts that do not read into the Constitution what is written ? And of course the answer is you guys want to undermine the constitution, you have turned the Supreme Court into political football tug-o-war. A originalist, by definition, can't change anything about the Constitution. What liberals want to do is chip away a little at a time all of our core values that lie within the constitution, then use stare decisis to say, but you can't change the precedent of the courts, which of course is an outrageous, same might say even oxymoronic thesis since the liberals change what it means all the time.

No decisions that are faulty should ever stand, just like Brown vs. Board of Ed. bad decisions should be struck down. Liberals are the only ones far away from the original moore's of our founding fathers. They love the ideas of Mao and Lenin.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SolomonVII
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Worked out nice didn't it ? The gig is up, why do liberals want to lace people on the courts that do not read into the Constitution what is written ? And of course the answer is you guys want to undermine the constitution, you have turned the Supreme Court into political football tug-o-war. A originalist, by definition, can't change anything about the Constitution. What liberals want to do is chip away a little at a time all of our core values that lie within the constitution, then use stare decisis to say, but you can't change the precedent of the courts, which of course an outrageous, eben oxymoronic thesis since the liberals change what it means all the time.

No decisions that are faulty should ever stand, just like Brown vs. Board of Ed. bad decisions should be struck down. Liberals are the only ones far away from the original moore's of our founding fathers.They love the ideas of Mao and Lenin.

"Sir, this is a McDonald's drive thru"

None of this addresses or disproves a single word that I wrote in my post to you. It's just an irrelevant rant about originalism, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand because nothing in the Constitution prevents a president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy late in his (or her) second term.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,496
11,193
✟213,086.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
"Sir, this is a McDonald's drive thru"

None of this addresses or disproves a single word that I wrote in my post to you. It's just an irrelevant rant about originalism, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand because nothing in the Constitution prevents a president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy late in his (or her) second term.
Ringo
Joe Biden was the one who said a president shouldn't try to fill a court vacancy late in his term.
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Joe Biden was the one who said a president shouldn't try to fill a court vacancy late in his term.

Biden made his comments in June of an election year with no nominee to consider. Garland, if I remember correctly, was nominated early in 2016 and was never given the time of day.

Context, it seems, is important.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Worked out nice didn't it ? The gig is up, why do liberals want to lace people on the courts that do not read into the Constitution what is written ? And of course the answer is you guys want to undermine the constitution, you have turned the Supreme Court into political football tug-o-war. A originalist, by definition, can't change anything about the Constitution. What liberals want to do is chip away a little at a time all of our core values that lie within the constitution, then use stare decisis to say, but you can't change the precedent of the courts, which of course an outrageous, eben oxymoronic thesis since the liberals change what it means all the time.

No decisions that are faulty should ever stand, just like Brown vs. Board of Ed. bad decisions should be struck down. Liberals are the only ones far away from the original moore's of our founding fathers.They love the ideas of Mao and Lenin.
Democrats have gotten into the habit of relying on an activist courts to pass laws that they do not dare to put into their platform. Changing the balance of the court will not make the court partisan conservative. Originalist is neither conservative nor liberal because the American constitution is neither conservative nor liberal. It is all about the law as written, instead of reinterpreting the law to fit an activist agenda.

Changing the balance of the court for a generation will not make America more conservative. It will mean that Democrats will have to change their strategy and sell their ideals to the electorate, rather than passing it through the backdoor SCOTUS activism.


The moment that happens and the appointment of judges to SCOTUS will no longer be such a highly partisan affair.
 
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,496
11,193
✟213,086.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Democrats have gotten into the habit of relying on an activist courts to pass laws that they do not dare to put into their platform. Changing the balance of the court will not make the court partisan conservative. Originalist is neither conservative nor liberal because the American constitution is neither conservative nor liberal. It is all about the law as written, instead of reinterpreting the law to fit an activist agenda.

Changing the balance of the court for a generation will not make America more conservative. It will mean that Democrats will have to change their strategy and sell their ideals to the electorate, rather than passing it through the backdoor SCOTUS activism.


The moment that happens and the appointment of judges to SCOTUS will no longer be such a highly partisan affair.
Good point.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: SolomonVII
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Word is that Grassley is P to the O'd, and may send the whole thing to a grand jury. This is just a rumor, but he has demanded that she turn all of her communication re: Kavanaugh over to the Senate. Guess having an ex-boyfriend say that she committed perjury over the polygraph, and her BFF saying that not only did she lie to the Senate, but then had her former FBI pal try and pressure her into changing the statement that the BFF sent might have repercussions.
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
144,652
17,337
USA/Belize
✟1,738,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Worked out nice didn't it ? The gig is up, why do liberals want to lace people on the courts that do not read into the Constitution what is written ? And of course the answer is you guys want to undermine the constitution, you have turned the Supreme Court into political football tug-o-war. A originalist, by definition, can't change anything about the Constitution. What liberals want to do is chip away a little at a time all of our core values that lie within the constitution, then use stare decisis to say, but you can't change the precedent of the courts, which of course an outrageous, eben oxymoronic thesis since the liberals change what it means all the time.

No decisions that are faulty should ever stand, just like Brown vs. Board of Ed. bad decisions should be struck down. Liberals are the only ones far away from the original moore's of our founding fathers.They love the ideas of Mao and Lenin.

Why is Brown vs. Board of Education bad? You believe there should be segregated schools - keep the blacks apart from the whites?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Revealing Times

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2016
2,845
420
59
Clanton Alabama
✟108,106.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Why is Brown vs. Board of Education bad? You believe there should be segregated schools - keep the blacks apart from the whites?
You misconstrued what I said. Stare Decisis is a kinda precedent in which Justices hold to the "COURT'S RULINGS" except in rare cases like BAD DECISIONS that are obvious, such as Brown vs. the Board of Education. If its a close call, in most cases they defer to the courts old decisions.

My point is, ALL BAD DECISIONS should be overturned. Not just the most grievous decisions. The liberals use Stare Decisis to chip away at our constitution over time. They make a bad ruling, then say, but there's precedent.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
144,652
17,337
USA/Belize
✟1,738,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You misconstrued what I said. Stare Decisis is a kinda precedent in which Justices hold to the "COURT'S RULINGS" except in rare cases like BAD DECISIONS that are obvious, such as Brown vs. the Board of Education. If its a close call, in most cases they defer to the courts old decisions.

My point is, ALL BAD DECISIONS should be overturned. Not just the most grievous decisions. The liberals use Stare Decisis to chip away at our constitution over time. They make a bad ruling, then say, but there's precedent.

Again, what was bad about Brown vs. the Board of Education?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,637
59
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
"Sir, this is a McDonald's drive thru"

None of this addresses or disproves a single word that I wrote in my post to you. It's just an irrelevant rant about originalism, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand because nothing in the Constitution prevents a president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy late in his (or her) second term.
Ringo

Elections have consequences, especially when you lose
the Senate majority and become a lame duck.

Nothing requires the Senate to vote for confirmation.
The Senate Is Not Required to Vote on Merrick Garland's Nomination to the Supreme Court - The Atlantic
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Word is that Grassley is P to the O'd, and may send the whole thing to a grand jury. This is just a rumor, but he has demanded that she turn all of her communication re: Kavanaugh over to the Senate. Guess having an ex-boyfriend say that she committed perjury over the polygraph, and her BFF saying that not only did she lie to the Senate, but then had her former FBI pal try and pressure her into changing the statement that the BFF sent might have repercussions.
I would like to get to the bottom of all that too.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Elections have consequences, especially when you lose
the Senate majority and become a lame duck.

Nothing requires the Senate to vote for confirmation.
The Senate Is Not Required to Vote on Merrick Garland's Nomination to the Supreme Court - The Atlantic
Republicans stayed both within the law and within the norms of procedure in their hard ball action to postpone their vote on the Garland nomination.
Democrats broke every norm in the book in their unethical fight to keep Kavanagh nomination from going through. It was all pretty laughable with milquetoast Booker's Spartacus moment.
Not so funny thoug when the smear campaign began in earnest with the Democrats fanning the flames of mob rule, complete with slurs and threats against Kavanagh's young family, and destroying women's reputations by dredging up adolescent antics in year books and publishing confidential information from a victimized woman who had wished to remain anonymous.
Democrats did not care how many lives were damaged in their quest to keep control of SCOTUS.
The Democratic party has gone full board Alinsky in their attempts to win power at any cost. There is no decorum to them.
If one wants to know the true nature of the kind of person that holds the death of 60 million unborn as their crowning achievement, the Democrats showed their full face in this process.

Norms of government allow for hard ball politics, and Cocaine Mitch was well within the norms that had governed Senate appointments to that point. While it was not 'normal' for Mitch McConnel to actually win any battles against Democrats until that point, he has taken a shine to winning under the rules that have come to the fore through Democrats playing hard ball politics themselves.
This latest fiasco however laid waste to the idea of their even being procedure. It was psychopathic, and rule by sociopaths will be the norm if allowed to continue.
 
Upvote 0