Thune: Democrat Hysteria About Judge Kavanaugh is Predictable and Unfortunate

Thune: Democrat Hysteria About Judge Kavanaugh is Predictable and Unfortunate

“Democrats aren’t looking for a qualified Supreme Court justice. They’re looking for a political rubber-stamp.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today discussed the president’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and the predictable hysteria that has come from Democrats who are trying to keep Kavanaugh from being confirmed by drawing from the same partisan, political playbook they tried to use against Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Thune also discussed the Commerce Department’s announcement that the economy grew by 4.1 percent in the second quarter of 2018 – more evidence that Republicans’ pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda is working.

27 thoughts on “Thune: Democrat Hysteria About Judge Kavanaugh is Predictable and Unfortunate”

  1. Yet he did not make a floor statement when it came to the mistreatment of Merrick Garland. Judge Garland did not even get a hearing. How could the Senate advise and consent – or withhold its “advise and consent” when it was merely a political gamble until the election had occurred?

    This is merely political theatre at its best. He’s been on the Floor more than ever lately because he’s running and gunning for the Senate Whip position. While it’s good to see him out there – just wish it was more principaled and less political.

    Something I’d expect to see from Senator Rounds… disappointed to see it from Senator Thune.

      1. Advise and consent has historically been done through hearings and information finding resulting with an up or down vote.

        The vote is the consent. A yes vote is positive consent and a no vote is a negative consent. We send two senators there to take the tough vote- and yet the two we sent balked at their jobs and didn’t raise a voice or do anything about it.

        Next time anyone complains about Congress not getting anything done- consider them using their advice and consent oversight responsibilities.

    1. The Dems scream that you can’t replace Kennedy with someone more conservative because you must have balance, but they didn’t care that Gar!and was no Scalia. Hypocrites, one and all.

      We need people who uphold the Constitution, not those who spit on it and want to make Law like Ginsberd, Kagan, and Sotomayor.

    2. oh great rounds slam. following rounds around, you’d see someone doing a lot of good essential work, and making sure south dakota’s interests are covered at all times. but hey be a hater.

  2. Anonymous, Garland fared no different than a pile of GOP nominees under Bush, get over it

    The real tradgedy is that Ginsberg and her caucus always vote as a Block and nobody writes about this robotic left-wing view of the decisions, where politics matters to those four over the rule of law

    1. First of all, they don’t caucus –

      Second of all- what do you say about Roberts and the Conservative Justices?

      Third – Would you have supported Justice Thomas’ nomination to the court?

      Let’s not be hypocritical. If you disagree with how they interpret the law- make a better argument rather than slinging mud.

    2. Those appointees were not for the Supreme Court- and if you say it doesn’t matter you’re just lying to yourself.

      1. Anonymous 1002–yes they do caucus…you clearly do not understand how the SCOTUS actually works…

        Roberts and the conservative 4 I assume you mean don’t vote ina block always…that is the point…the liberal 4 do block vote most of the time

        Hell yeah I’d have voted for Thomas! Great Justice and well reasoned, just because the Democrats tried to smear him as they knew he would be a strong conservative vote…compare that with how Ginsburg and Breyer were treated in their confirmatilon hearings…she is an ACLU lawyer for God’s sake…but not one Republican voted against her as I remember

    1. And? There will always be a dissent unless the vote is unanimous. What else would clerks have to use to learn from?

  3. Thune is completely unoriginal and uninspiring. One would think he would offer more original and in inspiring content.

    That said I’m glad he’s voting right.

  4. The “caucus” reference was a sort of pun, shouldn’t be an accurate description, but it does fairly describe the four liberals lock-step voting
    Sorry my name didn’t appear on earlier comment

  5. What a superb succinct intellectual and factual articulation of the case for Judge Kavanaugh to become Justice Kavanaugh.

    And in stark contrast to the emotional, “inspiring” vapid hyperbolic rhetoric that is too often what we have as political “debate.”

    Thank you Senator Thune. I sign my name in support of you and the job you do to make America and the lives of Americans better.

  6. Judge Kavanaugh is highly qualified and mainstream. He should be confirmed. But this quote from Sen. Thune:

    “Democrats aren’t looking for a qualified Supreme Court justice. They’re looking for a political rubber-stamp.”

    That quote exactly describes Republican senators when they refused to act on the Garland nomination. Let’s not pretend that our senators are statesmen. Thune is part of what’s wrong with Washington.

  7. As usual the polictical rhetoric plays with the facts. The fact is politicians from both parties make outrageous comments to sway public opinion. I do believe this indiscretion was weaponized by the Dems but Republicans have become skilled understudies. Unfortunately the media has been used by both parties and shows little ability to think for themselves.

    Fact is when one looks at the true Supreme Court voting relationship it appears to be balanced and the Justices take their jobs seriously.
    Politics rhetoric is the cancer that has nearly paralyzed 2 branches of government. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if some Senators quit politicing and kept the SCOTUS cancer free.

    1. Is it necessary to “balance” the court with those who follow the Constitution and those who do not? I don’t think it is. Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan don’t belong on the court as they don’t believe in the need to follow the Constitution; Ginsberg even said, stupidly, that we should look to the laws of other nations to decide on American cases; what a moron!

      1. “I don’t agree with her” does not mean she doesn’t “follow the constitution.” Further, foreign laws have a long history of being used as persuasive authority in the United States starting with John freaking Marshall himself. It further boggles the mind that random internet poster with an over-reliance on semicolons thinks Ginsberg is an idiot just because he disagrees with her. I guarantee you this, bub: not a single member of the United States Supreme Court is a moron. Not. One.

  8. Schoenie admits he posts under anonymous when he doesn’t want his reputation soiled. It’s your turn to come clean, Powers, Jones and Beal. Hey, what happened to Russian KM? yuk yuk yuk!!

    1. 1) You are a baldfaced liar.

      2) Schoenbeck admitted he inadvertently posted as anonymous and didn’t notice it until later. I’ve done it inadvertently and have corrected the record EVERY time I discovered it. It is a pathology to reject people’s correction of an inadvertent mistake.

      3) If he was doing it as you suggest to protect his reputation, he wouldn’t have admitted it. To assert it, you are clearly of a substandard intelligence.

      4) You are a coward and trying to run down people who do use their name.

      You are a four-tool moron: Liar, Sociopath, stupid, and a coward. It must be miserable living as you being wholly dismissed and disrespected except by a small band of sycophants.

  9. Well said Sage and JimV. All other posts on this subject are irrelevant. Our Senior Senator seemed to put his own foot in his mouth. One should always clean the windows and be certain the glass is not broken in their own home before making wild accusations of others that they themselves have been guilty of in the past.

Comments are closed.