Trump picks Amy Coney Barrett.

[blues]

Does no one know Jabberwocky anymore?

[Joe in PNG]

Does no one know Jabberwocky anymore?

[RJ]

I thought Sen. Graham’s close was pretty good.

[LittleLebowski]

The next four years may be hard for you...

Having said that Hirono is borderline moronic, and Grassley/Leahy may be technically zombies at this point.

And Blumenthal...

[JAD]

I thought Sen. Graham’s close was pretty good.

Feinstein must have had a hair appointment.

[critter]

How would you like to be a Senator about to cast a negative vote for confirmation next week after all this testimony?

How do you go back to your constituents and say that this woman is unqualified to be on the SCOTUS?

(I understand that I have little to no hope that this will happen, and it will be a virtual Party line vote. But I’m an optimistic person. Sigh.)

US vs THEM... I doubt even one of them gives a damn whether she's qualified. The constituents stupid enough to vote those traitors into office have one thought in mind, "Orange Man Appointee BAD" and nothing else matters.

[Half Moon]

Does no one know Jabberwocky anymore?

Well, perhaps, it's confusing a bowsprit with a rudder, but if thrice I say yes would you believe: what I tell you three time is true?

[Half Moon]

US vs THEM... I doubt even one of them gives a damn whether she's qualified. The constituents stupid enough to vote those traitors into office have one thought in mind, "Orange Man Appointee BAD" and nothing else matters.

Or, possibly, you might consider the qualifications of Merrick Garland and whether tit for tat, with forgiveness, is a valid solution to an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Or you can just grind your partisan ox; which is a lot like beating your meat: briefly satisfying, I'm sure, but ultimately not fruitful.

[critter]

Or, possibly, you might consider the qualifications of Merrick Garland and whether tit for tat, with forgiveness, is a valid solution to an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Or you can just grind your partisan ox; which is a lot like beating your meat: briefly satisfying, I'm sure, but ultimately not fruitful.

Nothing partisan about being a literal constitutionalist. In my book, anyone who isn't is a traitor.

As far as I'm aware, we're talking about the constituents. I doubt if even 10% of them have a clue who Garland is.

[feudist]

Or, possibly, you might consider the qualifications of Merrick Garland and whether tit for tat, with forgiveness, is a valid solution to an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Or you can just grind your partisan ox; which is a lot like beating your meat: briefly satisfying, I'm sure, but ultimately not fruitful.

Forgiveness?

Are you sober? You think we should let the left have a SCOTUS pick to be fair?

The people who want to disarm you. The people who are burning our cities and calling for violence against Americans over political views.

The side that picked the "Nuclear option". The side that intimidated journalist with the power of the presidency. The side that actively sought to suppress free speech

by law and are suppressing it with their accomplices in the media.

You think we should be fair to them, or forgive them because we're what? Meanies?

Orange Man bad!