>>>but it's obvious why he was magically added to the list after Muller lol...
>
>Well, I could follow the logic explained by Kavaunaugh when he cited chapter and verse. My expectation would be that any legalist would reach the same conclusion, or would be able to say why. Nobody in Senate could rebut him on this pont so unless you can show him to be wrong, you don't get to attack merely because he disagrees with an outcome you'd like.
>
>>>What bothers me is that the GOP is willing to rubber-stamp whoever he picks no matter what and the committee hearings have been a farce from the start.
>
>Are you for real? He was subjected to more written questions than all previous SC nominees combined- and he survived their every legal hook and crook, schooling a number of Senators on the law of the land along the way. So if there was a farce, it wasn't of his making.
>
>>>It looks more banana republic than the USA. Note that GOP members have been saying they'll vote for him regardless of what the witnesses say, so they are not willing to gather information or evidence prior to making a decision. THAT I object to. They can stall for a year to rob Obama - but need to push this guy though before they have the facts?
>
>You mean like Schumer declaring straight away he'd vote No and voting that Clinton was not guilty despite his seed on a dress? Oh, those awful Republicans. Puh-leez.
>
>Lets just forget all the ad hominam bullying stuff and focus on whether Kavanaugh is the sort of legalist the SC needs.

Ok - Kavaunaugh was picked by Trump because Kavaunaugh thinks that Trump can't be indicted. Agreed?