Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Dill]

(09-27-2018, 11:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I'm actually wondering exactly what I typed.   

Well here is what you actually typed.

(09-27-2018, 11:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then I wonder why you haven't pointed that out to the posters railing against how partisan Kavanaugh is.  Selective outrage possibly?

My point was that "nothing partisan" has never been the standard.

Otherwise formulated, senators traditionally have not demanded nominees be somehow totally non partisan.  They only rejected people whose personal history raised questions of fitness and/or whose career history seemed especially partisan--a "warrior" for his/her cause. Kavanaugh meets both criteria. So in the past presidents tended to nominate people "acceptable" to the other side, and senators from both sides were satisfied with qualifications. With  few exceptions, the votes were then routine, no need for hearings.

If you understood that point, then why ask why I have not pointed it out to posters critical of Kavanaugh, who are not demanding "nothing partisan" in Republican nominees?

To get to "selective outrage," you'd have to assume 1) that said posters were assuming "nothing partisan" was the standard, or 2) that Kavanaugh was not convtroversial, someone whose career has not been especially partisan, a moderate pro-lifer with no history of doing one thing and saying another.   

Do you have any evidence of 1 or 2?  Did you misunderstand the point?